nllillllllllllilliM 


IMPWriONS  Qf 

liiiiiiiiiiiiih  -i 

^'\K.ESPEARE:I 


iiiiU 


111  111  illiii 


ILBDUR 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


Qfia^di    )n2*^.^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/alterationsadaptOOkilb 


ALTERATIONS    AND    ADAPTATIONS 
OF    SHAKESPEARE 


By 
FREDERICK  W.  KILBOURNE,  Ph.D. 


THE   POET   LORE   COMPANY 
1906 


Copyright  igo6  by  FREDERICK  W.  Kilbourne 


All  rights  reserved 


PRINTED  AT 

THE  GORHAM  PRESS 

BOSTON,   U.  S.   A. 


CONTENTS  -^.  ;i 


I 

Page 

Chapter  One — General  Discussion  ...  5 

// 

Chapter  Two — The  Tempest — The  Two  Gentlemen 
of  Verona — The  Merry  Wives  of 
Windsor  .         .         .         .         .         27 

Chapter  Three — Measure  for  Measure — The  Com- 
edy of  Errors — Much  Ado  about 
Nothing — Love's  Labour's  Lost         .         46 

Chapter  Four — A  Midsuminer  Night's  Dream — The 
Merchant  of  Venice — As  You  Like  It 
O  '  — The  Taming  of  the  Shrew    .         .         65 

Chapter  Five— All's  Well  that  Ends  Well— Twelfth 
Qv  Night — The  Winter's  Tale — King 
^  John — Richard  II — /  Henry  IV — 
\  2  Henry  IV 84 

^Chapter  Six — Henry  V — /.  2,  and  3  Henry  VI — 
^  Richard  III— Henry  VIII—Troilus 
Vq  and  Cressida 10 1 


1^ 


CONTENTS—  Continued 

Chapter  Seven — Coriolanus — Titus  Andronicus — 
Romeo  and  Juliet — Timon  of 
Athens         .  ....        120 

Chapter  Eight — Julius  Caesar — Macbeth — Hamlet 

— King   Lear — Othello  .         .       142 

Chapter  Nine — Antony  and  Cleopatra — Cymbeline — 

Pericles  .  .  .  .  .173 

/// 

Epilogue 187 


I 

GENERAL  DISCUSSION 


CHAPTER  I.    GENERAL  DISCUSSION 

A  LL  students  of  English  literature  are  familiar 
L\  with  the  fact  that  for  a  long  period,  begin- 
X  JL  ning  with  the  Restoration  and  practically 
ending  with  the  eighteenth  century,  Shake- 
speare's plays  were  usually  not  represented  in  their 
unsophisticated  forms  but  in  altered  or  adapted  ones 
conforming  to  the  changed  taste  of  the  time. 

A  few  of  the  more  noteworthy  of  these  revisions 
are  known  to  such  students  and  may  have  been  read 
or  glanced  over  by  them,  but  general  knowledge 
rarely  goes  beyond  such  facts  as  that  Tate  gave 
"  Lear  "  a  happy  ending  or  that  Cibber  is  responsible 
for  certain  phrases,  as  the  well-known  "  Richard's 
himself  again,"  which  are  still  heard  when  "  Richard 
the  Third"  is  played  and  which  are  sometimes  popu- 
larly attributed  to  Shakespeare.  Even  professed 
Shakespeare  students,  however,  know  little  or  nothing 
of  the  great  body  of  these  versions,  which  in  the 
eighteenth  century  nearly  or  quite  displaced  the  origi- 
nal plays  —  how  extensively  is  testified  by  the  inter- 
esting fact  that  the  author  of  The  Tatler,  having  oc- 
casion to  quote  from  "  Macbeth,"  quotes  not  from 
the  original  but  from  the  D'Avenant  alteration,  ap- 
parently for  the  reason  that  its  diction  was  the  one 
that  would  be  recognized  by  his  readers  or  possibly 
because  it  was  the  one  most  familiar  to  himself. 

It  is  my  purpose  to  give  in  the  ensuing  pages  the 
results  of  a  study  of  these  alterations  and  adaptations, 

5 


6    ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

which  was  as  thorough  as  I  was  able  to  make  it,  with 
so  much  of  the  material  inaccessible. 

Preliminarily,  I  shall  notice  the  pronounced 
change  in  dramatic  tastejwMdi,  dM^entjateg  the  pe- 
riod I  am  dealing  with  from  the  preceding  one,  and 

"then  indicate^e  effecf7)fTlTe  belief  in  different  dra- 
rnatic  tenets  on  the  opinion  of  Shakespeare.  Thence 
I  shall  pass  to  a  discussion  of  the  principles  of  the 
dramatic  art  which  came  to  rule  and  to  which  the 
Jjitaywrights  of  the  time  endeavored  to  make  Shake- 
speare's plays  conform  by  means  of  alteration.     THls 

~done,  T  sTiall  dev^ote~the~bul1c~of"the  work:  to  a  more 
or  less  detailed^scription  of  the  various  altered  ver- 
sions and  to  comment  on  the  individual  modifications 
made,  whether  these  changes  were  in  the  direction  of 

"the  practicaFapplicatlon  of  the  special  dramatic  theo- 
ries held  or  in  that  of  the  manifestation,  not  of  any 
particular  dramatic  notion,  but  of  the  personal  opin- 
ions, judgment,  or  caprice  of  a  reviser. 

With  the  closing  of  the  theatres  by  Parliamentary 
ordinance  in  1642,  the  old,  or  Elizabethan,  drama, 
which  had  long  been  undergoing  decay,  came  abruptly 
to  an  end.  After  the  theatres  were  again  thrown 
open  at  the  Restoration  a  complete  change  of  taste 
was  soon  evident.  The  masses  were  no  longer  at- 
tracted to  the  stage  as  in  the  previous  period.  The 
drama  was  dominated  by  the  influence  of  the  court 
and  people  of  fashion  and  so  it  ceased  to  reflect  the 
life  of  the  nation.  The  spirit  of  the  age  was  frivo- 
lous and,  as  Ward  says,  it  "  sought  in  the  drama 
a  mere  stimulant  of  passion  and  satisfaction  of 
curiosity." 

Although  the  Restoration  drama  may  be  called 
the  child  of  the  old  age  of  the  Elizabethan,  it  was, 
however,  a  child  brought  up  in  a  foreign  country. 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  7 

It  was  natural  enough  that  a  king  and  nobility  who 
had  been  exiles  in  France  should  endeavor  after  their 
return  to  their  native  land  to  transplant  many  of  the 
ideas  acquired  during  their  absence.  This  was  done, 
and  in  no  literary  domain  was  the  French  influence 
more  felt  than  in  that  of  the  drama.  The  dramatic 
principles  employed  by  Corneille,  Moliere,  and  Ra- 
cine came  to  be  imposed  upon  the  English  drama, 
which,  except  in  a  few  instances,  as  in  Jonson's  plays 
and  some  of  the  early  dramas  on  classical  models,  had 
hitherto  been  free  and  untrammeled.  Accordingly, 
the  new  plays  began  to  conform  more  or  less  strictly 
to  certain  so-called  rules  of  art  based  on  Aristotle  and 
others  of  the  ancients  and  modified  by  French  ideas 
and  usages.  As  any  notice  of  the  original  plays  of 
the  period,  however,  would  not  only  be  superfluous 
—  they  have  already  been  abundantly  discussed  by 
other  and  abler  students  —  but  also  foreign  to  my 
purpose,  I  shall  pass  without  further  delay  to  that 
with  which  I  am  chiefly  concerned,  the  effect  of  this 
new  taste  on  Shakespeare,  as  shown  in  the  current 
opinions  regarding  him  and  also  in  the  alterations  of 
his  plays  which  were  the  concrete  manifestations  of 
these  opinions. 

The  plays  of  Shakespeare  were  not  banished  from 
the  stage  after  the  Restoration  but  continued  to  be 
acted  with  great  success  as  they  were  especial  favorites 
with  the  common  people.  The  chief  cause  of  their 
retention,  however,  seems  to  have  been  that  their 
strong  characters  and  striking  situations  furnished 
such  great  opportunities  for  histrionic  and  scenic  ef- 
fects. But  the  attitude  of  the  people  of  fashion  to- 
ward the  playswas  greatly  different  from  that  of  the 
masses.  The  courtiers  looked  upon  them  as  inferior 
works  and  did  not  disguise  their  contempt  for  them. 


8    ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

Two  passages  from  Pepys  will  show  this  conclusively. 
Under  the  date  of  1662,  he  says,  "To  the  King's 
Theatre,  where  we  saw  '  Midsummer  Night's  Dream,' 
which  I  had  never  seen  before,  nor  shall  ever  see 
again,  for  it  is  the  most  insipid,  ridiculous  play  that 
ever  I  saw  in  my  life;  "  and  again,  in  1666,  he  writes, 
"  To  Deptford  by  water,  reading  '  Othello,  Moor  of 
Venice,'  which  I  ever  heretofore  esteemed  a  mighty 
good  play;  but,  having  so  lately  read  'The  Adven- 
tures of  Five  Hours,'  it  seems  a  mean  thing."  When 
we  are  informed  that  the  play  which  Pepys  preferred 
to  "  Othello  "  had  a  variety  of  plots  and  intrigues,  we 
may  see  to  what  extent  the  dramatic  taste  of  the  peo- 
ple of  fashion  had  become  degenerate,  for  these  opin- 
ions of  the  gossipy  Secretary  to  the  Admiralty  doubt- 
less reflect  the  sentiment  of  many  a  courtier  toward 
Shakespeare. 

The  attitude  of  the  professional  critics  and  liter- 
ary men  was  also  very  unfavorable.  It  might  be  de- 
scribed as  lukewarm  admiration  often  tempered  with 
open  or  thinly  veiled  disdain.  Dryden,  the  greatest 
genius  and  the  literary  dictator  of  his  time,  had  a 
great  veneration  for  Shakespeare,  yet  his  better  judg- 
ment was  often  held  in  subjection  to  the  depraved 
taste  of  those  about  him.  He  did  not  hesitate  to 
break  a  lance  with  Shakespeare  by  writing  a  play  on 
the  same  subject  and,  what  was  even  more  fatuous  on 
his  part,  attempted  to  improve  two  of  the  great  dram- 
atist's best  plays.  The  original  work  and  the  revisions 
were  about  equally  damaging  to  their  author's  repu- 
tation for  literary  taste  and  judgment.  He  did  not 
understand  the  real  nature  of  the  romantic  drama,  and 
moreover  his  employment  as  a  hack  writer  made  him, 
doubtless  not  unwillingly,  follow  the  prevailing  liter- 
ary fashions.    As  Dryden  grew  older  his  appreciation 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  9 

of  Shakespeare  increased  and  his  more  mature  criti- 
cisms show  much  less  of  the  depreciative  opinions 
expressed  in  his  earher  prefaces  and  other  critical  arti- 
cles. Still  he  found  many  faults  in  Shakespeare  which 
he  charitably  attributed  to  that  author's  living  in  a 
less  refined  age. 

The  criticisms  made  by  Dryden  were  repeated, 
with  slight  variations,  by  critics,  dramatists,  and 
editors  down  to  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury. Passing  by  the  absurd  strictures  of  Rymer  and 
Mrs.  Lennox,  the  latter  of  whom  denied  Shakespeare 
any  excellence,  one  may  call  to  mind  the  criticisms  of 
John  Dennis  and  Charles  Gildon,  both  of  whom,  as 
did  Dryden,  replied  to  Rymer  in  defense  of  Shake- 
speare, and  the  prefaces  of  Rowe,  Pope,  and  lastly 
Doctor  Johnson,  who  was  almost  frightened  at  his 
own  temerity  in  justifying  Shakespeare's  rejection  of 
the  unities.  These  all  recognized  the  genius  of  the 
great  Elizabethan,  but  seemed  to  think  that  he 
worked  without  any  method  at  all  and  lamented  that 
he  was  unlearned  and  ignorant  of  the  "  rules  of  art." 
Not  until  the  time  of  Coleridge  were  these  false  no- 
tions entirely  eradicated. 

Before  considering  what  these  rules  of  art  were, 
for  the  observance  of  which  the  critics  clamored,  I 
must  turn  aside  to  notice  one  innovation  which,  as  ap- 
plied to  Shakespeare's  plays,  had  in  many  instances  a 
damaging  effect  on  them.  As  is  well  known,  the 
stage  furnishings  in  the  Elizabethan  period  were 
severely  simple  —  there  was  no  movable  scenery. 
After  the  introduction  of  that  accessory,  which,  when 
kept  in  proper  subordination,  is  a  decided  and  wel- 
come addition  to  the  representation  of  a  play,  there 
was  afforded  great  opportunity  for  scenic  display,  and 
some  of  the  earlier  alterations  of  the  plays  arose  out 


lo       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

of  efforts  made  to  produce  elaborate  effects  of  this 
kind.  The  plays  of  Shakespeare  in  their  original 
form,  or  nearly  so,  were  better  acted  by  the  company 
of  which  Betterton  was  the  head;  so  Sir  William 
D'Avenant,  master  of  the  rival  company  (the 
Duke's),  to  make  head  against  the  success  of  the 
King's  Company,  was,  according  to  Cibber,^  "  forced 
to  add  spectacle  and  music  to  action;  and  to  introduce 
a  new  species  of  plays,  since  called  dramatic  operas, 
—  all  set  off  with  the  most  expensive  decorations  of 
scenes  and  habits,  with  the  best  voices  and  dancers." 
Among  others,  D'Avenant  chose  two  of  Shake- 
speare's plays  to  be  thus  represented,  namely,  "  The 
Tempest"  and  "Macbeth,"  which  besides  were  ma- 
terially altered  as  to  plot.  The  new  taste  in  this  way 
established  had  some  influence,  for  Shadwell  turned 
"The  Tempest"  into  a  regular  opera,  as  did  also 
Garrick,  and  operatic  additions  were  made  to  several 
of  the  other  plays  with  the  result  in  every  case  of 
badly  disfiguring  them,  and,  further,  there  has  sur- 
vived a  tendency  to  make  music  and  spectacle,  es- 
pecially the  latter,  prominent  in  Shakespearean  repre- 
sentations. On  the  whole,  however,  this  influence 
was  comparatively  unimportant,  being  confined  to  a 
few  plays  only.  Most  of  the  alterations  were  due  to 
other  causes  to  a  consideration  of  which  I  shall  now 
turn  my  attention. 

I  have  mentioned  that  it  was  the  universal  opinion 
that,  owing  to  his  having  lived  in  a  barbarous  age  — 
that  is,  from  the  eighteenth-century  point  of  view  — 
and  his  own  lack  of  education,  Shakespeare  was  ig- 
norant of  the  "rules  of  art."  What  were  these 
"rules  of  art"?  First  in  importance  were  the  so- 
called  Aristotelian  unities  of  time  and  place,  which 
had  governed  the  classical  drama  and  which  had  been 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  ii 

imposed  upon  the  French  pseudo-classical  drama  by 
Corneille.  With  regard  to  the  unity  of  action,  it 
may  be  said,  in  passing,  that  there  was  never,  even 
among  the  romanticists,  any  serious  question  as  to  the 
propriety  of  observing  it,  allowance  being  made  for 
individual  interpretation  and  application  of  the  prin- 
ciple, and  that,  although  changes  were  sometimes 
made  by  the  alterers  of  Shakespeare  to  bring  a  play 
into  what  was  regarded  as  closer  conformity  to  it,  it  is 
not  its  violation  but  that  of  the  other  unities  which 
was  chiefly  censured.  So,  when  the  unities  are  men- 
tioned or  referred  to,  it  is  to  be  understood  that,  unless 
otherwise  indicated,  those  of  time  and  place  are 
meant.  It  will  not  be  necessary  to  explain  or  to  re- 
fute these  principles  here.  They  are  well  known  and, 
among  others.  Doctor  Johnson,  in  the  preface  to  his 
edition  of  Shakespeare,  has,  not  however  without 
some  misgiving,  proved  that  the  necessity  for  their  ob- 
servance rests  upon  false  assumptions.  It  is  no  more 
binding  upon  an  Englishman  to  observe  them  than 
for  him  to  obey  the  laws  of  Draco.  The  romantic 
drama,  the  cardinal  principle  of  which  was  absolute 
freedom  of  treatment  in  dramatizing  a  story,  rejected 
them  almost  entirely.  But  to  an  age  which  derived 
its  ideas  of  the  drama  from  Corneille,  Moliere,  and 
Racine,  it  seemed  rank  heresy  or  gross  ignorance  in  an 
author  not  to  make  his  plays  "  regular."  The  drama- 
tists of  the  time,  therefore,  in  their  own  plays,  if  not 
adhering  strictly  to  the  unities,  at  least  observed  them 
as  nearly  as  possible.  We  do  not  object  greatly  to 
their  doing  this  in  the  case  of  their  own  works,  al- 
though by  so  doing  they  restricted  the  extent  of  the 
drama  and  lessened  Its  variety  and  thus  injured  their 
own  product;    but  when  they  called  Shakespeare  a 


12       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

barbarian  because  he  designedly  and  deliberately 
neglected  to  observe  these  artificial  rules,  of  which  he 
was  not,  as  they  wrongly  supposed,  ignorant,  and, 
what  was  far  worse,  considered  themselves  privileged 
to  alter  his  plays  at  will  to  make  them  conform  to 
these  false  principles,  we  cannot  but  condemn  their 
mistaken  efforts  and  deplore  their  ignorance  and  lack 
of  reverence  for  the  great  master. 

I  have  found  but  one  attempt  to  give  a  play  of 
Shakespeare's  a  strictly  classical  form,  namely,  the 
Duke  of  Buckinghamshire's  treatment  of  "  Julius 
Caesar,"  in  which  the  endeavor  almost  precisely  to 
observe  the  unities  caused  the  reviser  to  divide  the 
play  Into  two  tragedies,  in  doing  which  he  mutilated 
the  text  and  was  guilty  of  some  absurdities.  But  all 
through  the  eighteenth  century  will  be  found,  in  con- 
nection with  the  other  revisions,  numerous  changes  to 
make  tht  plays  approach  more  nearly  to  conformity 
to  the  unities.  Sometimes  the  desire  to  observe  inore 
closely  the  unity  of  action  probably  led,  partly  at 
least,  to  the  omission  of  the  comic  underplot,  or  of  the 
less  Important  characters,  or  of  some  of  the  episodes. 
In  every  case  to  the  detriment  of  the  play  so  treated. 
Often  the  time  of  the  action  was  restricted  and  large 
portions  of  a  play  omitted  In  consequence,  the  omis- 
sions being  replaced  by  passages  of  the  reviser's  own 
composition.  Again  the  would-be  improvers  over- 
came the  objectionable  (to  them)  shifting  of  the  scene 
from  place  to  place  by  confining  It  to  one  place  or 
fewer  places. 

Another  "rule  of  art"  which  the  critics  and 
dramatists  considered  necessary  to  be  observed  was 
that  of  poetical  justice.  According  to  this  rule  the 
virtuous  should  retire  at  the  end  of  the  play,  as  Doc- 
tor Johnson  said  of  Tate's  Cordelia,  "with  victory 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  13 

and  felicity,"  while  the  wicked  should  receive  the 
punishment  they  have  merited.  This  idea  needs  no 
other  refutation  than  that  It  is  contrary  to  human  ex- 
perience. Even  such  a  classicist  as  Addison  saw  the 
falsity  of  It  and  condemned  It  as  a  "  chimerical  no- 
tion." But  his  Is  an  example  of  a  better  taste  than  is 
to  be  found  in  other  critics  of  the  period.  Of  course 
Shakespeare  had  violated  this  rule  many  times.  Hear 
Dennis  on  this  point:  "The  good  and  the  bad  per- 
ishing promiscuously  In  the  best  of  Shakespeare's 
tragedies,  there  can  be  either  none  or  very  weak 
Instruction  In  them."  In  this  spirit  Dryden  set  to 
work  to  remodel  "  Trollus  and  Cresslda  " ;  Tate,  as 
we  all  know,  gave  "  Lear,"  and  James  Howard, 
"Romeo  and  Juliet,"  a  happy  ending;  and  Dennis 
himself  punished  Aufidius  in  his  version  of  "  Corio- 
lanus."  These,  however,  are  only  some  of  the  more 
important  Instances  in  which  this  rule  was  applied, 
there  being  numerous  other  minor  cases  which  make 
It  on  the  whole  one  of  the  most  pernicious  In  its  in- 
fluence on  the  plays. 

Another  rule  the  observance  of  which  Dryden 
and  others  regarded  as  essential  was  that  the  hero 
and  heroine  should  not  be  villains.  Dryden's  opinion 
on  this  point,  which  he  derived  from  Aristotle,  Is 
this:  "  It  is  absolutely  necessary  to  make  a  man  vir- 
tuous If  we  desire  he  should  be  pitied.  We  lament 
not,  but  detest,  a  wicked  man ;  we  are  glad  when  we 
behold  his  crimes  are  punished  and  that  poetical  jus- 
tice is  done  upon  him.  It  Is  necessary  that  the  hero 
of  the  play  be  not  a  villain,  that  is,  the  characters 
which  should  move  our  pity  ought  to  have  virtuous 
Inclinations  and  degrees  of  moral  goodness  In  them. 
As  for  a  perfect  character  of  virtue,  it  never  was  in 
nature,  and  therefore  there  can  be  no  imitation  of  It; 


14       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

but  there  are  allays  [alloys]  of  frailty  to  be  allowed 
for  the  chief  persons,  yet  so  that  the  good  which  is 
in  them  shall  outweigh  the  bad,  and  consequently 
leave  room  for  punishment  on  the  one  side,  and  pity 
on  the  other."  As  Shakespeare  had  often  gone  coun- 
ter to  this  theory,  Dryden,  to  give  an  example  of  its 
practical  application,  and  to  show  what  Shakespeare 
should  have  done,  altered  the  play  in  the  preface  to 
which  this  criticism  is  given  In  such  a  way  as  to  make 
the  heroine,  Cressida,  virtuous.  This  rule,  besides 
being,  as  Scott  says,  "  too  nice  and  fastidious,"  Is 
likewise  not  always  true  to  experience.  It  would 
exclude  such  plays  as  "  Richard  III  "  and  "  Mac- 
beth," and,  moreover,  the  character  of  a  villain  may 
be  so  portrayed  as  to  excite  our  pity  or  sympathy, 
as,  for  example,  that  of  Shylock. 

Another  feature  of  the  Elizabethan  drama  in 
general  and  Shakespeare  In  particular  that  gave 
offense  to  the  classicists  was  the  mingling  of  the  tragic 
and  the  comic  in  the  same  play.  That  tragedy  should 
be  unrelieved  by  any  particle  of  humor  and  that 
comedy  should  be  all  comic,  was  the  doctrine  In  its 
unalloyed  form,  to  which  a  playwright  of  pure  taste 
must,  in  the  opinion  of  true-blue  classicists,  conform 
strictly.  Such  extremists  reprobated  tragi-comedy 
altogether.  Especially  was  the  Introduction  of  comic 
characters  or  scenes  Into  tragedy  reprehensible. 
"There  Is  no  place  In  tragedy,"  said  Gildon,  "for 
anything  but  grave  and  serious  actions."  They  did 
not  perceive  that  this  Is  not  so  in  life  and  that  Shake- 
speare, whom  they  charged  with  deficiency  or  bar- 
barity of  taste  for  going  counter  to  this  "  rule  of  art," 
was  familiar  with  the  doctrine  (It  had  been  put  forth 
and  followed  before  his  time),  had  seen  Its  falsity, 
and  had  deliberately  rejected  it. 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  15 

The  practice  of  the  sticklers  for  art  fell  short, 
however,  of  their  theory.  The  introduction  of  tragic 
scenes  into  comedy  was  not  so  much  objected  to  as 
the  reverse  procedure,  and  tragi-comedy  came  to  be, 
because  of  its  popularity,  a  more  or  less  accepted 
kind  of  drama,  being  regarded  as  a  sort  of  concession 
to  human  weakness.  Dryden  apologetically  took  its 
part  and,  later.  Doctor  Johnson  came  to  its  defense. 
But  the  strict  classicists  clung  desperately  to  the  idea 
that  no  comedy  should  be  permitted  in  a  tragedy; 
the  comic  portions  were  thought  to  counteract  the 
effect  of  the  tragic  instead  of  to  heighten  it,  as  we 
know  it  to  do,  and  as  Shakespeare,  as  a  real  dramatic 
artist,  had  clearly  perceived.  To  be  sure,  it  came  to 
pass  that,  among  the  less  rigid  holders  of  the  theory 
we  are  discussing,  a  tragedy,  even  when  altered  to 
have  a  happy  ending,  as  Tate's  "  Lear "  or  How- 
ard's "  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  was  still  a  tragedy,  pro- 
vided there  was  sufficient  of  the  tragic  element  in  the 
play,  but  this  belief  savored  of  heresy.  Shakespeare 
was  censured  greatly  because  of  his  practice  as  to  this 
mingling  of  the  tragic  and  the  comic,  and  his  intro- 
duction of  low  characters,  nonsense,  and  buffoonery 
into  his  tragedies  was  regarded  as  disgracing  them. 
This  was  the  belief  of  Milton  and  especially  of  Vol- 
taire. Of  the  attempt  to  improve  Shakespeare  in 
this  respect  we  find  many  instances.  This  notion  is 
responsible,  for  example,  for  the  omission  of  the 
porter  scene  in  "  Macbeth "  by  D'Avenant,  of  the 
gravediggers  in  "  Hamlet "  by  Garrick,  and  of  the 
fool  in  "Lear"  by  Tate  and  his  successors;  and,  in 
large  measure,  for  the  rejection  of  the  comic  charac- 
ters and  the  comic  underplots  in  such  plays  as  Shef- 
field's "  Julius  Cassar,"  D'Avenant's  alteration  of 
"Measure  for  Measure"  ("The  Law  against  Lev- 


i6       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

ers"),  and  Gildon's  revision  of  the  same  play,  and 
Johnson's  "  Love  in  a  Forest  "  ("  As  You  Like  It  ") . 
Rarely,  alterers  allowed  their  desire  to  display  their 
own  excellence  in  comic  writing  and  to  please  the 
people,  to  go  against  their  dramatic  faith,  for  Tate 
added  comedy  to  "  Richard  II,"  and  Dennis,  although 
censuring  Shakespeare's  practice,  did  likewise  in  the 
case  of  "  Coriolanus."  Thus,  by  their  adherence  to 
a  false  principle  of  art  and  by  their  doing  violence 
to  Shakespeare  as  a  result  of  their  mistaken  belief, 
did  the  playwrights  and  critics  exhibit  most  effectively 
their  own  lack  of  comprehension. 

I  come  now  to  describe  a  practice  affecting  the 
plots  of  the  plays  that  has  been,  perhaps,  greater  cause 
of  their  mutilation  than  has  the  application  of  any  of 
the  foregoing  opinions.  The  dramatists  of  the  eight- 
eenth century  believed  that  it  was  the  business  of  a 
play  to  deal  with  the  passion  of  love.  There  must  be 
plenty  of  intrigue,  or,  at  least,  women  must  figure 
conspicuously  in  a  play,  otherwise  the  drama  was  not 
a  true  play.  This  idea  was  French  in  its  origin,  as 
may  be  seen  from  what  Edward  Phillips,  the  disciple 
of  Milton,  says  of  Corneille's  practice  in  this  respect: 
"  Corneille,  the  great  dramatic  writer  of  France, 
wonderfully  applauded  by  the  present  age,  both 
among  his  own  countrymen  and  our  Frenchly-affected 
English,  for  the  amorous  intrigues,  which  if  not  there 
before,  he  commonly  thrusts  into  his  tragedies  and 
acted  histories ;  the  imitation  whereof  among  us,  hath 
of  late  very  much  corrupted  our  English  stage." 

But  not  only  did  the  dramatists  adopt  this  device 
for  their  own  works,  but  also  they  had  the  audacity 
to  thrust  "  amorous  intrigues,"  love  affairs,  and  the 
like,  into  Shakespeare's  tragedies  and  histories.  The 
passion  of  misanthropy  was  not  sufficient  to  be  the 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  17 

subject  of  a  tragedy  like  "Timon,"  but  the  drama 
must  be  "made  into  a  play"  by  Shadwell,  who  gave 
Timon  a  couple  of  mistresses  and  omitted  much  of 
the  original  play  to  make  room  for  a  number  of  love 
scenes.  Tate  felicitates  himself  upon  his  hitting  upon 
the  expedient  of  introducing  into  "Lear"  a  love 
affair  between  Edgar  and  Cordelia,  "  to  rectify  what 
was  wanting  in  the  regularity  and  probability  of  the 
tale."  Not  content  with  that,  he  makes  Edmund 
have  a  desire  for  her  and  amplifies  on  his  criminal 
commerce  with  Goneril  and  Regan.  Sheffield  added 
love  scenes  to  his  alteration  of  "Julius  Ceesar."  But 
this  Frenchified  refinement  was  most  extensively  em- 
ployed in  the  remodeling  of  the  histories.  These 
especially  were  considered  not  true  plays  because  they 
did  not  answer  to  the  definition  of  a  tragedy  or 
cortiedy.  Nevertheless,  although  they  could  not  of 
course  be  circumscribed  by  the  unities,  or  at  most  only 
partly,  it  was  the  notion  that  they  could  be  made  more 
like  plays  than  Shakespeare  had  left  them.  So  they 
were  remodeled  by  cutting  out  some  of  the  scenes  a»d 
substituting  for  the  omissions  scenes  of  love  intrigue 
and  the  like,  which  produced  shameful  mutilations. 

How  much  greater  knowledge  of  dramatic  art 
and  life  Shakespeare  shows  in  not  thus  limiting  his 
subjects  to  one  passion !  As  Doctor  Johnson  says, 
"  He  knew  that  any  other  passion,  as  it  was  regular 
or  exorbitant,  was  a  cause  of  happiness  or  calamity." 

One  or  two  minor  theories  that  were  held  or 
practices  that  were  followed,  which  had  a  slight  in- 
fluence on  the  alteration  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  re- 
main to  be  mentioned  and  disposed  of.  It  was  a 
belief  that  tragedy  should  be  confined  as  far  as  pos- 
sible to  royalty  and  persons  of  high  position,  and 
that  a  monarch,  when  the  chief  character  of  a  tragedy, 


1 8   ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

should  be  estimable.  The  former  idea  may  have  been 
responsible  partly  for  the  omission  of  comic  charac- 
ters in  the  tragedies  and  histories,  and  the  latter  in 
one  case  at  least,  namely,  in  Tate's  "  Richard  II,"  was 
so  applied  as  to  make  a  weak  monarch 'more  worthy 
of  the  passive  obedience  that  was  his  due.  Again, 
we  find  that  the  desire  for  scenes  of  violence  exercised 
some  effect,  for,  besides  usually  retaining  Shake- 
speare's scenes  of  this  kind,  the  revisers  frequently 
added  to  the  number  of  them.  This  feature  appears 
most  pronouncedly  in  Tate's  "  Coriolanus,"  and  in 
Ravenscroft's  "  Titus  Andronicus,"  but  there  are 
several  other  plays  that  also  exhibit  it,  as  Durfey's 
"  Cymbeline,"  in  which  an  episode  of  putting  out  eyes 
Is  Inserted. 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  plays  were  altered  In 
order  to  make  them  conform  as  much  as  possible  to 
certain  rules  foreign  to  the  spirit  and  practice  of  the 
romantic  drama,  namely,  the  unities,  poetical  justice, 
the  rule  that  the  chief  characters  of  a  play  should  be 
virtuous,  and  the  rule  that  tragedy  and  comedyshould 
not  be  mingled;  that  they  were  modified  to  admit 
music  and  spectacle,  and  sometimes  to  increase  the 
number  of  scenes  of  violence;  and,  further,  that  they 
were  altered  to  obey  a  rule  derived  from  the  French, 
which  required  the  passion  of  love  to  figure  promi- 
nently in  every  play.  By  far  the  greater  number  of 
the  revisions  were  made  In  the  Interest  of  these  false 
principles,  but  there  are,  however,  a  number  that 
cannot  be  assigned  to  any  of  these  causes.  Some  were 
made  apparently  with  the  object  of  Improving  the 
characterizations,  and  without  exception  failed  of 
their  purpose.  Sometimes  the  histories  were  so  al- 
tered as  to  emphasize  a  political  doctrine  or  to  serve 
as   a  medium   for  religious   Invective,   instances   of 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  19 

which  kind  are,  however,  fortunately  few.  Again, 
as  in  the  D'Avenant  alterations,  changes  were  made 
to  suit  certain  hastily  conceived  and  bad  theories  of 
dramatic  art. 

It  was  a  far  too  common  practice  to  turn  to  Shake- 
speare for  an  afterpiece.  Several  plays  were  cut 
down  by  Garrick  and  others  for  this  purpose,  or  parts 
of  plays  were  so  used.  This  reprehensible  practice 
was  doubtless  resorted  to  because  authors  lacked  sub- 
jects for  such  pieces,  or  because  their  invention  was 
barren  and  they  knew  that  there  was  abundance  of 
material  in  Shakespeare's  comedies.  Several  curious 
alterations,  as,  for  example,  James  Miller's  "  Uni- 
versal Passion  "  and  Lacy's  "  Sauny  the  Scot,"  were 
undertaken  with  no  apparent  purpose  other  than  to 
provide  partly  new  plays. 

In  all  these  "versions,"  which  were  "perver- 
sions "  and  "  adaptations  which  were  a  compound  of 
mutilations  and  Procrustean  extensions,"  there  was 
exhibited  not  only  the  utmost  lack  of  real  dramatic 
art,  but  also  the  absence  of  any  true  reverence  for  the 
great  dramatist,  whose  work,  as  has  been  said,  the 
would-be  improvers  considered  themselves  at  liberty 
not  merely  to  omit,  but  to  alter,  add  to,  and  other- 
wise mutilate  at  pleasure. 

One  more  phase  of  this  subject  calls  for  notice 
before  proceeding  further,  and  that  is  the  treatment 
of  Shakespeare's  diction  by  his  adapters  and  revisers. 
The  notion  was  held  by  an  age  whose  own  vocabu- 
lary was  impoverished  that  Shakespeare's  style  was 
obsolete  and  needed  refining.  In  the  preface  to  his 
"  Troilus  and  Cressida,"  which  I  have  quoted  from 
before  in  another  connection,  Dryden  complained 
that  many  of  Shakespeare's  phrases  were  ungram- 
matical  and  coarse  and  that  his  style  was  affected  and 


20       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

obscure  because  of  the  abundance  of  figurative  ex- 
pressions. So  one  finds  him  and  others  attempting  to 
refine  Shakespeare's  style  by  substituting  more  mod- 
ern equivalents  for  supposedly  obsolete  words  (many 
of  which  are  now  in  good  usage),  by  removing  the 
metaphorical  expressions,  and  by  making  absolutely 
unnecessary  and  unwarrantable  changes  merely  out 
of  caprice.  Verse  was  sometimes  turned  into  prose, 
or  vice  versa,  but  there  was  no  uniformity  of  practice 
in  this.  Again,  the  poetasters  omitted  many  of  Shake- 
speare's fine  passages  to  make  room  for  their  own 
miserable  stuff. 

It  might  have  been  expected  that  some  of  the 
plays  would  in  revision  have  been  given  the  form  of 
an  heroic  play  in  rime,  but  no  one  appears  to  have 
been  bold  enough  or  foolish  enough  to  attempt  this.- 
It  might  have  been  done  had  that  species  of  play  had 
a  longer  vogue,  but  the  attack  on  that  dramatic  genre 
by  Buckingham  in  "  The  Rehearsal "  and  the  aban- 
donment of  the  use  of  rime  by  Dryden,  which  put  an 
end  to  this  short-lived  type,  doubtless  prevented  any 
of  Shakespeare's  plays  being  thus  treated.        *" 

After  reading  these  rifacimenti  one  is  at  a  loss 
many  times  which  to  condemn  the  more,  the  changes 
in  the  plots  or  in  the  phraseology.  No  one  who  has 
not  read  such  plays,  for  example,  as  D'Avenant's 
"Macbeth"  or  Granville's  "Jew  of  Venice,"  can 
have  any  adequate  conception  of  the  unnecessary  and 
wanton  changes  of  words,  expressions,  lines,  and  pas- 
sages. On  the  whole  it  is  better  to  make  no  distinc- 
tion in  degree  between  the  condemnation  to  be  given 
to  the  treatment  of  plot  and  that  called  for  by  the 
treatment  of  diction.  Almost  without  exception  both 
are  equally  deserving  of  contempt  and  execration. 

There  is  yet  another  very  common  practice  that 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  21 

calls  for  anything  but  commendation,  and  that  is,  the 
borrowing  of  passages  from  some  other  play  or  plays 
of  Shakespeare,  and  even  from,  plays  of  other  authors, 
to  eke  out  the  dialogue  of  an  altered  version.  It 
was  reprehensible  not  only  because  unnecessary,  but 
also  because  the  passages  chosen  are  often  unsuited 
to  the  play  or  characters  to  which  they  are  trans- 
ferred. 

It  may  be  well  at  this  point  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion that  may  arise,  if  in  any  cases  improvements 
were  made  by  the  revisers?  This  may  be  answered 
In  the  affirmative,  for  in  a  number  of  instances  minor 
changes  were  made  for  the  better.  It  is  conceivable 
that  a  playwright,  working  in  a  true  spirit  of  rever- 
ence for  Shakespeare  and  with  a  knowledge  of  the 
principles  by  which  he  was  guided,  could  improve  the 
plays  in  numerous  instances,  for  Shakespeare  is  far 
from  impeccable  —  "The  only  impeccable  writers," 
says  Hazlitt,  "  are  those  who  never  wrote."  The 
proper  way  in  which  to  alter  Shakespeare  Is  to  make 
such  omissions,  transpositions,  and  other  slight 
changes  as  are  necessary,  and  many  of  the  later  acting 
versions,  made  in  this  spirit,  have  certainly  improved 
the  plays  for  representation.  There  is  nothing  wrong 
in  itself  in  trying  to  improve  a  play  of  a  predecessor. 
Shakespeare  himself  was  the  greatest  of  such  im- 
provers, and  such  transmutation  as  he  accomplished 
excites  our  wonder,  admiration,  and  gratitude.  But 
In  attempting  such  revision,  if  equal  genius  or  talent 
to  that  of  the  creator  is  not  required,  at  least  good 
judgment,  good  taste,  restraint,  and  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  principles  of  dramatic  art,  with  the 
ability  to  apply  them,  are  demanded.  The  trouble 
with  most  of  the  revisers  was,  as  I  have  shown,  that 
they  did  not  understand  Shakespeare's  art,  that  they 


22       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

were  led  astray  by  false  principles,  and  that  they  had 
no  reverence  for  the  great  Elizabethan.  Working  in 
this  spirit,  their  alterations  and  adaptations  were  al- 
most always_  wretched  failures,  which  in  the  long  run 
have  not  injured  Shakespeare,  but  have  gained  for 
their  authors  well-merited  and  everlasting  contempt. 

The  foregoing  account  of  the  eighteenth-century 
(as   for  convenience  we  may  designate  the  period 
under  review)    attitude   towards   and   treatment   of 
Shakespeare  will  have  in  a  measure  prepared,  it  is 
hoped,  the  way  for  the  account  of  the  alterations  and 
adaptations  in  detail.     In  giving  this,  I  shall  confine 
myself  practically  to  such  altered  versions  or  stage 
adaptations  as  exhibit  marked  or  at  least  noticeable 
changes,  mere  acting  versions  of  the  plays  not  coming 
within  the  scope  of  the  inquiry,  and  to  those  made 
previous  to   1800.     I  shall  usually  make  only  inci- 
dental mention  of  any  adaptations  made  after  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century.     By  that  time 
serious   attempts   to   improve   Shakespeare   had  vir- 
tually ceased,  or,  at  least,  nothing  that  would  make  a 
further  contribution  to  our  knowledge  of  the  |ubject 
was  produced.     The  playwright  Frederick  Reynolds, 
for  instance,   about   1820  turned  several  of  Shake- 
speare's comedies  into  operas,  which  were  wretchedly 
done  and  most  of  which  he  did  not  venture  to  print. 
No  new  principles  or  practices,   however,   were  in- 
volved in  these  or  any  others. 

My  list  of  alterations  and  adaptations,  which  is 
based  upon  that  given  in  the  Old  Variorum  edition  of 
Shakespeare,  and  which  not  only  supplements  but 
revises  the  catalogue  there  given,  aims  to  be,  and  I 
may  venture  to  hope  that  it  is,  as  exhaustive  an  enu- 
meration of  these  works  as  it  is  possible  to  make  from 
the  information  and  material  which  is  obtainable  or 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  23 

accessible.  It  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  at  least 
no  important  version  has  been  omitted.  In  treating 
the  plays  I  have  adopted  the  order  of  the  Globe 
edition. 


II 

THE  ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 
OF  THE  SEVERAL  PLAYS 


CHAPTER  II.    THE  TEMPEST  — THE  TWO 

GENTLEMEN    OF    VERONA  — THE 

MERRY  WIVES  OF  WINDSOR 

The   Tempest 

THE  TEMPEST,  a  comedy  so  finished  and 
delightful  that  it  seems  to  our  minds  al- 
most   insusceptible    of    improvement,    has 
been  one  of  the  chief  sufferers  at  the  hands 
of   those   who   should   have   known   better   than  to 
meddle  with  it. 

The  first  attempt  to  improve  it  was  made  by 
D'Avenant  and  Dryden,  and,  to  the  eternal  disgrace 
of  these  worthies,  their  revision  is  not  only  the  worst 
one  done  by  them  but  the  worst  produced  by  anybody 
and  probably  well-nigh  the  worst  conceivable.  Says 
Furness  :  "  Unless  we  read  it,  no  imagination,  derived 
from  a  mere  description,  can  adequately  depict  its 
monstrosity  —  to  be  fully  hated  it  must  be  fully  seen. 
Than  this  version,  there  is,  I  think,  in  the  realm  of 
literature  no  more  flagrant  instance  to  be  found  of 
lese-majeste."  Yet  It  was  enthusiastically  received, 
the  house  being,  according  to  Pepys,  who  has  six  ref- 
erences to  this  play,  "  mighty  full "  at  its  representa- 
tions. 

It  was  written,  as  Pepys  and  the  epilogue  testify, 
in  1667,  but  was  not  printed  until  1670,  after 
D'Avenant's  death.  It  was,  as  has  been  said  before, 
one  of  those  plays  which  D'Avenant  selected  for  pro- 
duction as  a  dramatic  opera,  and  accordingly  It  was 
furnished  with  elaborate  scenery,  music,  and  dancing. 

27 


28       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

But  not  content  with  additions  of  this  sort,  D'Aven- 
ant,  who  had  some  ideas  about  changes  in  the  plot 
which  seemed  to  him  and  to  his  friend  Dryden  most 
happy,  set  to  work,  with  the  help  of  his  successor  in 
the  laureateship,  to  remodel  the  play  in  accordance 
with  his  theories.  Dryden,  in  his  preface  to  the  first 
edition  of  the  new  play,  expressly  attributes  to 
D'Avenant  "  the  counterpart  to  Shakespeare's  plot, 
namely,  that  of  a  man  who  had  never  seen  a  woman; 
that  by  this  means  the  two  characters  of  innocence 
and  love  might  the  more  illustrate  and  commend  each 
other."  "  This  excellent  contrivance,"  he  goes  on  to 
say,  "  he  was  pleased  to  communicate  to  me,  and  to 
desire  my  assistance  in  it.  I  confess  that  from  the 
very  first  moment  it  so  pleased  me,  that  I  never  v/rit 
anything  with  more  delight."  "  The  comical  parts 
of  the  sailors  "  were  also  the  invention  of  D'Avenant 
and  were  for  the  most  part  written  by  him,  "  as," 
Dryden  says,  "  you  will  easily  discover  by  the  style." 
,_The  play  was  given  the  subtitle,  "  The  Enchanted 
Island,"  and  the  following  are  the  principal  changes 
in  the  dramatis  personae.  Alonso  is  Duke  of-^Savoy 
and  usurper  of  the  Dukedom  of  Mantua,  instead  of 
King  of  Naples;  Sebastian  is  omitted;  Gonzalo,  of 
course,  is  a  nobleman  of  Savoy;  Stephano  is  master 
of  the  ship,  instead  of  a  drunken  butler;  and  Trincalo 
[sic]  is  boatswain.  New  characters  are  Hippolito, 
who  had  never  seen  a  woman,  heir  of  the  Dukedom  of 
Mantua;  Mustacho,  mate  to  Stephano;  Ventoso,  a 
mariner;  Dorinda,  sister  to  Miranda;  Sycorax,  sister 
to  Caliban;  and  even  Ariel  has  a  duplicate  in  Mil- 
cha,  to  whom  is  given  the  song,  "Full  fathom  five," 
etc.  J(rhere  were  very  elaborate  scenic  representa- 
tions of  a  tempest  and  an  enchanted  island.;  [Some- 
times the  diction  Is  that  of  Shakespeare,  but  more 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  29 

often  it  departs  widely  from  him,  and  there  is  much 
added,  some  of  it  indifferent  but  most  of  it  very  bad.y 

The  First  Act  does  not  differ  materially  as  to 
plot  from  the  same  act  of  the  original  until  near  the 
end,  when  Dorinda  comes  on  and  Miranda  and  she 
utter  some  of  the  most  wretched  stuff,  about  their 
chance  of  seeing  a  man,  what  he  is  like,  and  how  he 
originates.  The  shipwreck  scene  is  much  altered  as 
to  language  and  for  the  worse,  some  of  the  new  or 
modified  orders  being  meaningless  and  others  calcu- 
lated to  effect  just  the  opposite  of  what  was  proper 
in  the  circumstances.  Ariel's  songs  to  Ferdinand 
are  put  in  III,  i,  and  the  remainder  of  the  scene  (2) 
is  made  the  fourth  scene  of  Act  III. 

The  Second  Act  is  considerably  changed.  The 
first  scene  is  between  Trincalo,  Stephano,  Mustacho, 
Ventoso,  and  Caliban,  and  is  somewhat  like  Shake- 
speare's II,  2,  but  has  much  additional  matter.  Cali- 
ban's soliloquy  is  put  into  prose.  In  scene  2,  Hippo- 
lito  is  introduced.  He  is  warned  by  Prospero  against 
woman,  a  creature  he  has  never  seen.  Hippolito  has 
just  gone  out  when  Miranda  and  Dorinda  appear, 
to  be  in  turn  warned  of  the  great  danger  that  lies  in 
man.  After  Prospero  withdraws,  the  two  sisters.  In 
spite  of  their  father's  warning,  make  an  attempt  to 
see  this  dangerous  creature.  In  the  third  scene,  Hip- 
polito enters,  they  see  him,  and  Dorinda  has  a  con- 
versation with  him.  Scene  4  starts  like  II,  2,  of  the 
original,  but  soon  changes  greatly.  The  stage  opens 
and  a  masque  is  given.  Three  devils  sing  under  the 
stage,  and  Pride,  Fraud,  Rapine,  and  Murder  sing 
solos  and  a  chorus.  This  is  intended  to  show  Alonso, 
Antonio,  and  Gonzalo  what  crimes  they  have  com- 
mitted and  to  punish  them. 

The  first  scene  of  Act  III  consists  of  the  two  songs 


30       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

of  Ariel  from  Act  I  and  the  speeches  of  Ferdinand, 
the  second  song,  as  has  heen  said,  being  sung  by 
Ariel's  duplicate  Milcha.  In  scene  2,  Prospero  chides 
Miranda  for  disobeying  him  and  not  taking  care  of 
her  sister;  scolds  Dorinda  for  her  disobedience;  and 
then  commends  Ariel  for  what  he  has  done,  com- 
manding him  to  provide  the  prisoners  with  food  and 
cheerful  music.  Ariel  carries  out  his  master's  orders 
in  scene  3.  There  is  a  dance  of  fantastic  spirits  and 
after  that  a  table  furnished  with  meat  and  fruit  is 
brought  in  by  two  spirits.  But  on  the  prisoners'  at- 
tempting to  eat,  the  spirits  fly  away  with  the  table. 
Then  Caliban  leads  Trincalo  to  Sycorax  and  there  is 
a  ridiculous  wooing  of  her  by  Trincalo.  Trincalo 
gives  her  what  he  supposes  is  wine  but  water  has  been 
substituted  for  it  by  Ariel.  Then  enter  Stephano, 
Mustacho,  and  Ventoso,  who  dispute  with  Trincalo 
about  the  sovereignty  of  the  island.  Scene  4  repre- 
sents Ferdinand  following  Ariel.  Ferdinand  solilo- 
quizes and  sings  to  raise  his  spirits  and  Ariel  echoes 
his  soliloquy  and  song.  This  feature  pleased  the  im- 
mortal diarist  "  mightily."  Scene  5  is  partly-  the 
omitted  part  of  Act  I,  scene  2,  and  partly  new  matter, 
Prospero  and  Hippolito  being  the  participants.  Pros- 
pero refrains  from  chiding  Hippolito  because  he  sees 
that  it  is  useless  to  try  to  bridle  nature.  Scene  6  is 
entirely  new  and  is  between  Ferdinand  and  Hippolito, 
the  latter  proposing,  in  his  innocence,  to  love  both 
women,  the  former  trying  to  persuade  him  that  this 
is  impossible. 

Act  IV  opens  with  Prospero's  giving  Miranda 
leave  to  see  Ferdinand  and  asking  her  to  make  him 
kindly  disposed  toward  Hippolito.  Miranda  and 
Ferdinand  talk  and  he  becomes  jealous  of  Hippolito. 
Soon  afterwards,   Hippolito  and   Dorinda   talk  to- 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  31 

gether,  Hippolito  telling  her  that  he  loves  her  sister 
too  and  hurrying  her  away  on  the  approach  of  Fer- 
dinand. Ferdinand  and  Hippolito  converse  again, 
Ferdinand  once  more  trying  to  show  him  that  he 
must  love  only  one,  and  at  last  they  come  to  blows. 
Scene  2  is  a  drinking  scene  between  the  comic  char- 
acters, ending  in  a  quarrel,  Sycorax  driving  off  Cali- 
ban, and  Trincalo,  Stephano.  Scene  3  is  a  long  one. 
Ferdinand  and  Hippolito  fight  and  the  latter  is 
wounded.  Prospero  blames  Ariel  for  not  preventing 
this;  then  enter  Alonso,  Gonzalo,  and  Antonio,  and 
Prospero  makes  himself  known  to  them.  Dorinda  is 
told  by  her  father  that  all  this  misfortune  has  hap- 
pened through  breaking  his  precept  and  she  scolds 
Miranda  for  letting  her  see  a  man.  The  act  ends  with 
a  soliloquy  by  Ariel  of  about  twenty  rimed  lines  on 
the  state  of  things  on  the  island. 

In  the  first  scene  of  Act  V,  Miranda  begs  Pros- 
pero to  pardon  Ferdinand,  which  he  refuses  to  do  at 
first  but  afterwards  does  when  Ariel  comes  in  with 
news  of  Hippolito's  restoration  by  the  use  of  weapon 
salve,  a  medicament  made  by  anointing  the  sword 
with  various  juices.  Dorinda  is  by  Hippolito's  couch 
in  the  second  scene,  when  Ferdinand  and  Miranda 
enter,  and  after  a  little  playing  at  cross  purposes  all 
is  made  right.  The  former  prisoners  and  the  comic 
characters  come  in  and  the  play  ends  much  as  in  the 
original.  The  third  scene  is  an  elaborate  masque 
provided  by  Prospero  for  the  entertainment  of  the 
other  characters,  and  consists  of  much  dancing  and 
singing  by  Neptune,  Amphitrite,  Oceanus,  Tethys, 
and  others.  Ariel  sings  "Where  the  bee  sucks," 
etc.,  and  then  a  farewell  between  Prospero  and  him 
ends  the  play. 

The  outrageousness  of  this  atrocious  travesty  15 


32       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

so  obvious  even  from  a  description  of  it  that  comment 
seems  superfluous.  Several  features,  however,  may 
perhaps  admit  of  a  word  of  that  nature.  Making 
operatic  additions  to  "  The  Tempest "  is  not  an  alto- 
gether bad  treatment  of  it,  for  the  play  is  of  such  a 
kind  as  to  lend  itself  readily  to  the  production  of 
scenic  effects  and  the  introduction  of  music.  If 
D'Avenant  and  Dryden  had  been  content  with  this 
and  had  let  the  plot  alone,  one  would  not  be  disposed 
to  blame  them  greatly,  but  the  spoiling  of  such  a 
beautiful  play  by  making  such  a  ridiculous  thing  of 
it  is  a  black  literary  crime.  The  duplication  and  con- 
trasting of  characters  is  the  most  noticeable  change. 
Shakespeare  often  repeats  himself  and  contrasts  char- 
acters, but  always  so  as  to  contribute  to  the  main 
purpose,  one  character  or  scene  being  kept  subordi- 
nate that  it  may  heighten  the  interest  of  another 
character  or  scene.  Nowhere  has  he  introduced  such 
obvious  counterparts  as  are  characteristic  of  D'Aven- 
ant's  "  Macbeth  "  and  the  play  under  review.  Scott 
has  so  well  criticised  this  ^device  that  one  cannot  do 
better  than  to  quote  him.  jj'  Much  cannot  be  said  for 
D'Avenant's  ingenuity  in  contrasting  the  Aaracter 
of  a  woman  who  had  never  seen  a  man,  with  that  of 
a  man  who  had  never  seen  a  woman,  or  in  inventing 
a  sister  monster  for  Caliban.  The  majestic  simplic- 
ity of  Shakespeare's  plan  is  injured  by  thus  doubling 
his  characters;  and  his  wild  landscape  is  converted 
into  a  formal  parterre  where  '  each  alley  has  its 
brother.^ In  sketching  characters  drawn  from  fancy 
and  not  from  observation,  the  palm  of  genius  must 
rest  with  the  first  inventor;  others  are  but  copyists, 
and  a  copy  shows  nowhere  to  such  disadvantage  as 
when  placed  by  the  original."  Besides,  although  we 
are  delighted  with  the   feminine  simplicity  of   Mi- 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  33 

randa,  it  becomes  unmanly  childishness  in  Hippolito; 
and  the  premature  coquetry  of  Dorinda  is  disgusting 
when  contrasted  with  the  maidenly  purity  that  chas- 
tens the  simplicity  of  Shakespeare's  heroine,7  The 
latter  seems  to  display,  as  it  were  by  instinct,  the  in- 
nate dignity  of  her  sex;  the  former  to  show,  even  in 
solitude,  the  germ  of  those  vices  by  which  in  a  volup- 
tuous age  the  female  character  becomes  degraded." 
This  great  change  gives  rise  to  some  of  the  most 
absurd  situations  and  furnishes  occasion  for  some  of 
the  silliest  and  otherwise  most  wretched-dialogue  to 
be  found  anywhere.  Scott  says  further,^'  Miranda's 
simplicity  is  converted  into  indelicacy  and  Dorinda 
talks  the  language  of  prostitution  before  she  has 
ever  seen  a  man."y  The  playing  at  cross  purposes 
on  the  part  of  the  two  heroes  and  two  heroines,  while 
one  of  the  legitimate  conventions  of  the  drama,  is 
here  so  insipid  apd  so  prolix  that  it  becomes  exceed- 
ingly tiresome,  f^ot  satisfied  with  displaying  lack  of 
art  by  giving  ^Caliban  a  sister,  the  authors  must 
degrade  him  and  the  comic  characters  into  low  buf- 
foons, who  spend  their  time  in  nothing  but  quarreling, 
drinking,  and  foul  talking.  But  this  is  only  in 
keeping  with  the  lowering  of  the  tone  of  the  whole 
play,  done  to  please  the  taste  and  to  conform  to  the 
morals  of  the  time.  "1 

^he  device  used^o  make  Alonso,  Antonio,  and 
Gonzalo  repent  of  their  crimes  is  not  nearly  so  imag- 
inative as  Shakespeare's.  But  the  masque  furnished 
opportunity  for  that  singing,  dancing,  and  scenic 
decoration  which  was  the  principal  purpose  of  the 
alteration.  The  masque  at  the  end,  of  course,  is  a 
legitimate  introduction.  It  comes  after  the  play 
proper  has  ended,  and  is  really  an  afterpiece.  Our 
authors  doubtless  omitted  Shakespeare's  masque  of 


34       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

Iris,  Ceres,  etc.,  because  they  thought  their  own  to 
be  b^etter. 

/^Saintsbury  attributes  the  greater  part  of  this 
travesty  to  D'Avenant,  adducing,  among  other  con- 
siderations, the  verse  which  is  "  the  strange  disjointed 
blank  verse,  half  prose,  which  was  common  between 
1640  and  1660  and  of  which  D'Avenant  has  left 
numerous  examples,  but  which  Dryden,  almost  from 
the  first  shook  off.^ 

I  In  1673,  Dryden's  literary  enemy  and  successor 
in^he  laureateship,  the  dramatist  Shadwell,  made 
"The  Tempest"  into  a  regular  opera,  providing  it 
with  new  scenes  and  elaborate  stage  machinery.  It 
was  produced  at  the  theatre  in  Dorset  Garden. 
Downes  says  that  everything  was  admirably  managed 
and  no  succeeding  opera  brought  more  money.  We 
shall  have  to  be  content  with  this  favorable  opinion  of 
its  representation  and  this  testimony  as  to  its  popu- 
larity, for  Shadwell  had  sufficient  sense  not  to  print 
it,  and  so  far  as  I  know  no  description  of  it  has  sur- 
vived. J^ 

D'Avenant's  "Tempest"  was,  like  his  "  I^ac- 
beth,"  ridiculed  by  Duffet,  in  this  case,  in  a  five- 
act  farce,  called  "The  Mock  Tempest,  or  the 
Enchanted  Castle,"  which  was  given  at  the 
Theatre  Royal  and  which,  according  to  Genest, 
"  has  some  fun  but  not  much."  Another  op- 
eratic travesty  of  this  play  was  brought  out  at  Edin- 
burgh about  the  time  of  Garrick's  opera  (soon  to  be 
taken  up).  It  was  concocted  out  of  Dryden  and 
D'Avenant  and  some  additional  matter.  Only  the 
songs  have  been  preserved.  In  1780,  there  was 
printed  at  London,  a  three-act  piece  entitled  "  The 
Shipwreck,  altered  from  Shakespeare  and  Dryden, 
with  the  original  music  by  Smith,  as  performed  at 
the  Patagonian  Theatre,  Exeter  Change."    This  was 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  35 

an  absurd  production,  the  witches  in  "Macbeth" 
being  borrowed  and  spoiled.  The  only  obligation 
to  Dryden  was  the  retention  of  Sycorax.    ' 

We  have  next  to  notice  "  The  Tempest,"  an  op- 
era taken  from  Shakespeare,"  acted  at  Drury  Lane 
in  1756  and  printed  the  same  year.  The  songs  are 
said  to  be  from  Shakespeare,  Dryden,  etc.,  and  an 
argument  is  prefixed.  As  in  Dryden,  Stephano  is 
master  of  the  ship,  Trincalo  is  boatswain,  the  new 
characters  Ventoso  and  Mustacho  are  introduced,  and 
Sebastian  is  omitted.  The  author,  who  is  probably 
Garrick,  says  by  way  of  apology,  "  It  is  hoped  that 
the  reader  will  excuse  the  omission  of  many  passages 
of  the  first  merit,  as  they  stand  in  the  said  play,  it 
being  impossible  to  introduce  them  in  the  plan  of 
this  opera."  The  echo  episode  is  borrowed  from 
Dryden  and  D'Avenant  and  enlarged,  and  in  several 
passages  the  author  follows  their  version  rather  than 
the  original.  Songs  are  inserted  from  Dryden  and 
D'Avenant's  "Tempest,"  from  Dryden's  "Tyrannic 
Love,"  and  even  from  Ben  Jonson  (the  last  stanza  of 
his  beautiful  lyric  "  Her  Triumph  "  in  "A  Celebra- 
tion of  Charis  ") .  This  last  is  presumptive  evidence 
of  Garrick's  authorship  of  this  piece,  as  he  was  better 
read  in  old  plays  and  other  literature  than  most  or 
all  of  his  contemporaries.  Prospero  is  made  to  sing, 
whereat  Genest  remarks,  "  If  Garrick  really  made 
Prospero  sing,  he  was  quite  right  not  to  acknowledge 
it  publicly,  as,  if  he  had  avowed  himself  the  compiler 
of  this  piece,  every  real  friend  to  Shakespeare  must 
have  received  his  professions  of  respect  for  that 
author  v/ith  a  smile  of  contempt."  He  says  further, 
"  This  opera  is  vastly  superior  to  the  generality  of 
operas,  but  the  attempt  to  reduce  one  of  Shake- 
speare's plays  to  that  despicable  species  of  composi- 
tion is  in  itself  dramatic  felony  without  benefit  of 


36       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

clergy."  It  also  speaks  little  for  the  sincerity  of 
Garrick's  regard  for  Shakespeare  that,  after  he  be- 
came manager,  he  revived  the  D'Avenant  and  Dry- 
den  "  Tempest,"  although  the  original  had  been  re- 
vived in  1746.  Commercial  reasons  may  have  been 
largely  responsible  for  this,  however.  Theophilus 
Cibber,  in  a  dissertation  which  he  delivered  at  the 
Haymarket  in  1756,  says  of  Garrick,  referring  to 
this  opera  and  similar  adaptations  made  by  him: 
"  Were  Shakespeare's  ghost  to  rise,  would  he  not 
frown  indignation  on  this  pilfering  pedler  in  poetry, 
who  thus  shamefully  mangles,  mutilates,  and  emas- 
culates his  plays?  The  'Midsummer  Night's 
Dream  '  has  been  minced  and  fricasseed  into  a  thing 
called  '  The  Fairies,'  '  The  Winter's  Tale '  mam- 
mocked into  a  droll,  and  '  The  Tempest '  castrated 
into  an  opera.  .  .  .  Yet  this  sly  prince  would 
insinuate  all  this  111  usage  of  the  bard  Is  owing,  for- 
sooth, to  his  love  of  him,  much  such  a  mock  proof  of 
his  tender  regard,  as  the  cobbler's  drubbing  his  wife. 
No  wonder  Shakespeare's  name  Is  Insulted 
by  foreigners,  while  he  Is  tamely  suffered  to  be  tlius 
maltreated  at  home."  This  spirited  castIgati*on, 
while  doubtless  to  a  considerable  extent  called  for, 
goes  too  far,  and  comes  with  bad  grace  from  Its 
author,  who,  we  fear,  was  moved  more  by  profess- 
ional jealousy  than  by  reverence  for  Shakespeare, 
against  whom  he  had  himself  been  an  offender  in  a 
similar  way. 

In  J.  P.  Kemble's  revision  of  "  The  Tempest," 
which  was  acted  at  Drury  Lane  about  fifteen  times  in 
1789,  the  baneful  influence  of  the  D'Avenant-Dryden 
travesty  Is  still  potent,  for  Hippollto  and  Dorlnda 
are  retained,  although  Sycorax  is  rejected.  The 
masque  of  Neptune  and  Amphitrite  Is  also  retained 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  37 

and  the  play  is  full  of  songs.  The  ridiculous  ship- 
wreck scene  of  D'Avenant  and  Dryden  is  replaced  by 
Shakespeare's,  but  the  restored  scene  is  wrongly  put 
in  Act  II.  Kemble  has  restored  a  good  deal  of 
Shakespeare,  particularly  in  the  comic  scenes,  but 
often  prefers  D'Avenant  and  Dryden.  He  adds 
some  of  his  own  invention  and  sometimes  alters  what 
he  takes  from  D'Avenant  and  Dryden,  On  the 
whole  his  alteration  is  a  discredit  to  him  and  he  must 
be  numbered  among  those  who  have  disgraced  them- 
selves by  mutilating  Shakespeare.  When  he  revised 
his  version  for  publication  in  1815,  he  restored  more 
of  the  original  but  still  left  the  play  sadly  mangled. ;' 

The  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona 

This  play  was  given  in  a  somewhat  altered  form 
at  Drury  Lane,  December  22,  1762.  The  reviser  in 
this  case  was  Benjamin  Victor,  a  theatre  manager  for 
many  years  and  the  author  of  a  history  of  the  stage. 
Greatly  to  Victor's  credit,  he  made  no  great  changes 
in  the  plot,  but  was  content  with  minor  internal  varia- 
tions, some  of  which  are  judicious  while  others  are 
unnecessary  and  in  some  cases  absurd.  He  added  a 
scene  or  two  in  order  to  make  the  comic  element  more 
prominent.  None  of  the  special  principles  of  the 
Shakespeare  revisers  is  involved  in  this  version ;  but 
it  may  be  of  interest  to  notice  briefly  the  alterations 
Victor  made. 

In  the  First  Act,  he  has  absurdly  transposed  scenes 
2  and  3,  thus  making  Julia  answer  Proteus's  letter 
Vefore  she  hnd  received  it,  and  further  he  has  inserted 
here  the  7th  scene  of  Act  II  —  Julia's  consulting 
Lucetta  about  a  journey  to  Milan,  which  in  the  origi- 
nal is  only  an  afterthought  of  hers.    Another  ridicu- 


38       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

lous  transposition  has  been  made  In  the  Second  Act,  by 
which  our  author  brings  it  about  that  Silvia  had  not 
only  determined  to  marry  Valentine  before  he  had 
plainly  declared  his  love  for  her,  but  had  even  writ- 
ten a  paper  with  directions  for  their  marriage  and 
escape.  Launce  speaks  his  first  soliloquy  at  Milan 
instead  of  Verona.  Acts  III  and  IV  differ  little  from 
the  original.  The  short  scene  between  Silvia  and 
Eglamour  has  been  judiciously  transferred  to  Act 
IV.  In  the  Fifth  Act,  Victor  has  made  a  great  im- 
provement by  leaving  out  Valentine's  overgenerous 
and  foolish  offer,  "All  that  was  mine  in  Silvia,  I  give 
thee."  When  Proteus  offers  to  force  Silvia,  Valen- 
tine comes  forward  and  orders  the  outlaws  to  seize 
him;  he  then  speaks  to  Silvia,  telling  her  to  dismiss 
her  fears  as  she  is  in  safety;  after  which  he  re- 
proaches Proteus  and  is  reconciled  to  him.  Victor 
has  added  two  short  scenes  for  the  sake  of  bringing 
Launce  and  Speed  on  the  stage  in  this  act,  but  as  the 
scenes  are  unnecessary  and  unworthy  of  Shakespeare, 
they  had  been  better  omitted. 

J.  P.  Kemble  revised  Victor's  alteration  for  repre- 
sentation at  Covent  Garden.  In  treating  Acts  Pand 
II,  he  saw  Victor's  blunder  in  the  case  of  the  letter 
and  corrected  it,  but  he  adopted  some  of  Victor's 
changes  for  the  worse,  even  his  ridiculous  consolida- 
tion of  scenes  i  and  4  of  Act  II.  For  the  rest,  Kem- 
ble, although  making  no  changes  of  plot,  makes  many 
unnecessary  and  wanton  changes  of  words,  gives 
names  to  the  outlaws,  and  adds  some  of  his  own 
composition  where  there  is  no  call  for  it.  He  follows 
Victor  in  discarding  Valentine's  unwarranted  attempt 
to  sacrifice  himself  on  the  altar  of  friendship. 

These  two  treatments  are  chiefly  interesting  as 
showing  how  much  care  and  dramatic  taste  and  skill 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  39 

must  be  exercised  in  attempting  to  improve  Shake- 
speare even  in  minor  points,  and  how  easy  it  is  to  fall 
into  absurdities  unless  an  improver  has  a  complete 
grasp  of  the  action  of  the  play  and  the  purpose  of 
each  detail. 

The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor 

John  Dennis,  the  critic,  when  replying  to  Rymer's 
absurd  strictures,  expressed  a  good  deal  of  admiration 
for  Shakespeare,  although  he  held  the  opinion  that 
he  worked  without  art.  Thinking  further  that  he 
could  improve  some  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  he  set  to 
work  to  remodel  "The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor" 
in  accordance  with  some  of  his  dramatic  notions.  He 
also  altered  Coriolanus. 

It  seems  strange  that  Dennis  should  have  chosen 
the  one  comedy  of  Shakespeare's  that  Dryden,  in  his 
"  Grounds  of  Criticism,  in  Tragedy,"  had  mentioned 
as  regular  in  respect  to  the  unities;  but,  as  Dennis  has 
given  his  reasons  in  his  dedication  of  his  revision  to 
Granville,  Lord  Lansdowne,  a  recent  predecessor  in 
this  line  of  endeavor,  we  will  let  him  speak  for  him- 
self. After  saying  that  he  chose  this  comedy  because 
it  is  full  of  action,  because  it  pleased  Queen  Elizabeth 
and  Charles  II  and  his  court,  and  because  he  believed 
it  to  be  susceptible  of  improvement,  he  goes  on  to 
say,  with  not  a  little  vanity:  "The  Merry  Wives  of 
Windsor,  as  it  has  great  beauties,  so  it  has  strange 
defects,  which  though  they  passed  at  first  for  the  sake 
of  the  beauties,  yet  will  come  to  be  less  endured  as 
the  stage  grows  more  regular.  For  there  are  no  less 
than  three  actions  in  it  that  are  independent  one  of 
another,  which  divide  and  distract  the  minds  of  an 
audience;  there  is  more  than  one  insignificant  scene, 


40       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

which  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  other  part  of  the 
play,  which  is  enough  to  obstruct  and  stifle  the  action. 
The  style  in  some  places  is  stiff  and  forced  and  af- 
fected, whereas  the  dialogue  in  comedy  ought  to  be  as 
free  as  the  air.  This  affectation  is  particularly  re- 
markable in  some  parts  of  the  first  scene  between  the 
Wives,  and  in  all  Ford's  part  of  the  first  scene  be- 
tween him  and  Falstaff.  This  is  not  said  in  the 
least  with  a  design  to  derogate  from  Shakespeare's 
merit,  who  performed  more  than  anyone  else  could 
have  done  in  so  short  a  time.  In  the  alteration  I 
have  endeavored  to  correct  the  foresaid  errors.  I 
have  made  everything  instrumental  to  Fenton's  mar- 
riage, and  the  whole  to  depend  on  one  common  center, 
which  I  believe  was  hardly  in  the  power  of  every 
writer  to  perform.  I  have  added  to  some  of  the  parts 
In  order  to  heighten  the  characters  and  make  them 
show  the  better.  In  short,  I  have  altered  everything 
which  I  disliked  and  retained  everything  which  I  or 
my  friends  approved  of,  excepting  something  of  Jus- 
tice Shallow  In  the  first  scene  of  the  play,  which  I 
omitted  for  two  reasons:  the  one  was  because  I  could 
not  bring  it  into  the  same  design  with  the  rest,''the 
second  because  I  knew  nobody  who  would  be  capable 
of  acting  that  clear,  unless  those  who  would  be  other- 
wise employed.  .  .  .  Whether,  sir,  I  have  im- 
proved it  or  no,  I  leave  It  to  you  to  determine : 
whether  the  scene  between  the  Wives  In  the  First  Act 
be  altered  for  the  better  or  the  worse;  whether  that 
between  Falstaff  and  Ford  in  the  Second  Act  is  aptly 
contrived  to  give  occasion  to  an  excellent  actor  to 
show  himself;  whether  that  between  Falstaff  and  the 
Wives  in  the  Third  Act  be  wholly  without  art,  and 
whether  that  between  Falstaff  and  Ford  In  the  Fourth 
Act  may  be  said  to  be  truly  comical."     It  may  be 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  41 

said,  in  passing,  that,  judging  from  His  Lordship's 
own  production  in  this  field,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  his  decision  was  most  favorable  to  the  dedicator. 

"  The  Comical  Gallant,  or  the  Amours  of  Sir 
John  Falstaff "  was  the  title  Dennis  gave  to  his  play, 
which  was  brought  out  in  1702.  He  made  few 
changes  in  the  dramatis  personae.  Mrs.  Dorothy 
Tearsheet  is  substituted  for  Mrs.  Quickly;  Fenton  is 
represented  as  nephew  to  Mrs.  Ford,  and  his  char- 
acter and  that  of  Anne  Page  are  enlarged;  Doctor 
Caius  and  Sir  Hugh  Evans  are  made  less  important; 
and  a  new  character,  the  Host  of  the  Bull,  brother 
to  Mrs.  Ford,  is  added.  The  change  of  Brook  to 
Broom  was  not  original  with  Dennis,  but  had  crept 
into  the  prompt-books  before  the  Folio  of  1623. 

The  conduct  of  the  action  is  much  altered  to 
adapt  it  to  the  notions  put  forth  in  the  dedication. 
Act  I  opens  with  a  scene  between  Fenton  and  the 
Host  of  the  Garter,  the  latter  of  whom  is  asked  by 
Fenton  to  get  Sir  Hugh,  who  is  promoting  Slender's 
suit  to  Anne  Page,  into  trouble  with  Doctor  Caius. 
Anne  Page  comes  in,  in  response  to  a  letter  previously 
carried  to  her  by  the  Host.  Fenton  tells  her  what  he 
has  asked  that  worthy  to  do,  also  that  he  has  per- 
suaded Falstaff  that  Mrs.  Page  and  Mrs.  Ford  are  in 
love  with  him,  and  that  he  has  also  persuaded  two 
of  Falstaff's  men  to  betray  him  to  Ford  and  Page. 
Then  enter  Falstaff,  Shallow,  Slender,  and  others, 
and  the  scene  is  like  I,  i  of  the  original.  Falstaff 
discharges  Pistol  and  Nym  as  in  I,  3  (lines  from  I,  2 
being  added).  The  Host  carries  out  his  part  with 
regard  to  Caius  and  Evans.  The  Wives  compare 
their  letters,  and  the  act  concludes  with  a  scene  in 
which  Pistol  and  Nym  inform  Ford  and  Page  of  Fal- 
staff's  intentions.      A   great   deal   of   Shakespeare's 


42       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

dialogue  is  used  in  this  act,  but  there  is  much  that  is 
new. 

Act  II  opens  with  Shakespeare's  II,  3,  Then 
Ford,  disguised  as  Broom,  hires  Falstaft  to  seduce 
his  wife.  Hardly  any  of  the  language  here  is  Shake- 
speare's except  the  soliloquy  at  the  end,  and  Dennis's 
dialogue  is  extremely  coarse.  The  remainder  of  the 
act  is  almost  exactly  like  III,  i  of  the  original. 

The  first  scene  of  Act  III  is  like  Shakespeare's 
III,  3,  except  that  the  scene  is  at  the  Bull  Inn  and  that, 
the  new  character,  the  Host  of  the  Bull,  is  introduced. 
Mrs.  Page  is  at  first  absent,  but  she  enters,  while  Fai- 
staff  and  Mrs.  Ford  are  talking,  disguised  as  Captain 
Dingboy,  a  gallant  who  pretends  to  be  on  a  similar 
errand  to  Falstaff's.  Falstaff  takes  refuge  behind  the 
arras,  but  discloses  himself  when  Mrs.  Page  vilifies 
him.  They  call  each  other  names  and  she  frightens 
Falstaft  with  a  pistol,  Falstaff  roaring  with  fear.  On 
Ford's  approach,  the  "fat  knight"  is  carried  off  in 
the  buck-basket.  Mrs.  Page  then  gives  Ford  a  beat- 
ing, but  Mrs.  Ford  and  she  run  out  when  the  latter's 
wig  is  pulled  off. 

In  Act  IV,  Ford  again  interviews  Falstaff  *t  the 
Bull.  After  Falstaff  goes  out,  the  Host  tells  Ford 
that  his  wife  and  Falstaff  are  to  meet  at  Heme's  Oak 
at  midnight.  To  circumvent  this  the  Host  and  Ford 
devise  a  plan,  the  principal  features  of  which  are  that 
Ford  is  to  go  to  the  rendezvous  dressed  like  Falstaff 
and  that  the  Host  is  to  tell  Mrs.  Ford  that  her  husband 
has  gone  to  London.  The  next  scene  is  between  Fen- 
ton  and  Anne  Page,  and  in  it  he  tells  her  to  dress 
not  as  her  father  or  her  mother  desires,  but  in  a  suit 
he  will  leave  for  her  at  Mrs.  Ford's.  The  last  scene 
is  between  Anne,  Shallow,  and  Slender,  and  some  of 
it  is  like  the  last  part  of  I,  i  of  the  original. 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  43 

Act  V  consists  of  the  denouement  at  Heme's  Oak. 
Falstaff,  after  entering  to  Mrs.  Ford  and  Mrs.  Page, 
secretes  himself  on  hearing  a  "  terrible  symphony." 
All  the  pinching  and  beating  by  the  supposed  fairies 
goes  to  Ford,  disguised  as  Falstaff,  while  the  latter 
not  only  escapes  unhurt  but  comes  in  to  see  the  sport. 
The  remainder  is  much  as  in  Shakespeare  save  that 
the  Host  of  the  Garter,  disguised  as  a  parson,  marries 
Doctor  Caius  to  Slender,  and  that  Fenton  and  Anne 
come  in  unmarried  and  obtain  forgiveness  before  the 
ceremony  of  their  marriage  is  performed.  The  play 
ends  with  a  moral  directed  against  clandestine  mar- 
riages. Such  is  the  miserable  production  upon  which 
our  ingenuous  author  felicitated  himself,  believing 
he  had  made  an  improvement  on  Shakespeare.  Dull- 
ness, like  Love,  is  evidently  blind — rendered  pur- 
blind or  stone-blind  in  this  instance  by  inordinate 
vanity. 

Let  us  see  how  Dennis's  would-be  improvements 
compare  with  their  originals  and  stand  the  test  of 
dramatic  art  and  common  sense.  One  great  change 
is  the  omission  of  Falstaff's  second  visit  to  Mrs.  Ford, 
made,  as  we  have  seen,  to  do  away  with  one  of  the 
so-called  independent  actions.  Dennis  was  not  able 
to  make  it  fit  in  with  his  plan  of  making  everything 
instrumental  to  Fenton's  marriage.  One  may  be  par- 
doned for  asking  why,  with  this  end  in  view,  he  did 
not  also  admit  Falstaff's  first  visit,  which,  so  far  as 
we  can  see,  contributes  very  little  or  not  at  all  to  that 
end,  and  why,  deeming  the  marriage  the  most  Im- 
portant thing  in  the  play,  he  did  not  give  his  re- 
modeled play  a  title  indicative  of  his  view.  In  reality, 
in  spite  of  all  this,  Falstaff's  adventures  are  made  the 
main  interest,  and  we  are  sorry  to  be  deprived  of  a 
third  part  of  them,  especially  when,  for  aught  anyone 


44       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

can  see,  the  omitted  episode  is  just  as  conducive  as  the 
retained  one  to  the  professed  end.  How  much  more 
natural  and  artistic  are  Shakespeare's  method  of 
setting  Sir  Hugh  and  Doctor  Caius  at  variance  and 
his  making  Falstaff  of  himself  become  amorous  of 
the  Wives,  than  Dennis's  artificial  expedient  of  mak- 
ing Fenton  the  bringer  about  of  both  conditions! 

Dennis's  common-center  theory  led  him  to  try  to 
make  what  in  Shakespeare's  play  is  the  secondary 
plot  the  main  action,  but  he  makes  wretched  work  of 
his  attempt.  How  could  he  fail  to  see  the  masterly 
dramatic  skill  of  the  Elizabethan  in  combining  so 
consummately  two  actions,  the  amorous  intrigues  of 
Falstaff  and  the  love  aflfairs  of  Anne  Page.  How 
clearly  does  he  exhibit  that  lack  of  art  which  he 
attributed  to  his  predecessor! 

Another  marked  change  is  the  action  in  the  Third 
Act.  The  necessity  for  the  change  of  the  place  of 
Falstaff's  interview  with  the  Wives  and  for  the  addi- 
tion of  the  Host  of  the  Bull  is  not  evident.  It  is  much 
more  natural  that  Falstafi  should  go  to  Ford's  house. 
Mrs.  Page's  masquerading  as  an  eighteenth-century 
spark,  while  doubtless  pleasing  to  the  audiendfes  of 
Dennis's  time,  makes  the  character  a  dreadful  cari- 
cature of  the  right-minded  wife  of  the  original.  Our 
reviser's  conduct  of  the  action  in  the  entire  act  is 
most  unskilful  as  compared  with  that  of  Shakespeare. 
We  are  disgusted  with  the  representation  of  Falstaff 
as  roaring  like  a  frightened  bull  before  a  pistol  in  the 
hand  of  the  disguised  Mrs.  Page,  and  of  Ford  as 
receiving  a  beating  from  her. 

Mention  of  this  last  episode  suggests  and  will 
serve  to  introduce  the  greatest  dramatic  change  in  the 
play,  the  depression  of  the  character  of  Ford.  In 
Shakespeare's  play  the  jealous  but  dignified  husband, 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  45 

when  events  and  appearances  are  explained  to  him, 
begs  his  wife's  pardon  and  joins  with  the  Wives  in 
the  attempt  to  punish  Falstaff  at  Heme's  Oak.  But 
Dennis  has  changed  all  that.  The  motive  of  the 
meeting  at  the  oak  becomes,  instead  of  an  endeavor 
to  punish  Falstaff  for  his  lust,  an  attempt  to  cure 
Ford  of  his  jealousy.  Even  this  purpose  is  clumsily 
executed.  Dennis,  in  making  this  denouement, 
brought  his  play  into  conformity  with  that  immoral- 
ity which  characterized  the  Restoration  comedies,  in 
which  the  injured  husband  is  made  to  suffer  ridicule, 
while  the  profligate  gallant  who  has  tampered  with 
the  wife  gets  off  scot  free  with  commendation  and 
applause. 

Minor  changes  of  action  may  be  dismissed  with 
the  simple  statement  that  they  are  uniformly  bad  and 
often  absurd. 

With  regard  to  the  dialogue,  while  Dennis  fre- 
quently follows  Shakespeare  closely,  more  than  half 
of  it  is  new.  His  attempt  to  make  the  dialogue 
"  free  "  has  certainly  succeeded  in  one  sense,  for  he 
has  made  it  far  coarser.  There  will  be  no  dissent 
from  the  conclusion  that  this  is  an  execrable  alteration. 


CHAPTER  III.     MEASURE  FOR  MEASURE  — 

THE  COMEDY  OF  ERRORS  — MUCH 

ADO  ABOUT  NOTHING  — LOVE'S 

LABOUR'S   LOST 

Measure  for  Measure 

D'AVENANT'S  "  Law  against  Lovers  "  is  an 
alteration  of  "  Measure  for  Measure," 
with  the  incorporation  of  the  characters 
of  Benedick  and  Beatrice  from  "  Much 
Ado  about  Nothing."  This  seems  to  be  the  first 
of  these  rifacimenti,  for  it  was  produced  as  early 
as  February,  1662,  at  the  theatre  in  Lincoln's  Inn 
Fields,  although  it  was  not  printed  until  1673. 

The  characters  of  "  Measure  for  Measure  "  are 
mostly  retained,  as  are  also  the  chief  features  of  the 
main  plot,  but  the  comic  underplot  is  omitted.  The 
borrowed  characters  are  fitted  into  the  dramatis  per- 
sonae  by  making  Benedick  a  brother  of  Angelo  and 
Beatrice  a  cousin  of  Julietta  and  ward  of  Angelo. 
A  new  character  is  added  in  Viola,  who  is  a  very 
young  sister  to  Beatrice,  and  who,  Benedick  says,  "  is 
not  a  chip  of  the  old  block,  but  will  prove  a  smart 
twig  of  the  young  branch,"  and  whose  singing  and 
dancing  especially  pleased  Pepys.  Very  little  of  the 
action  of  "  Much  Ado "  is  introduced,  but  many 
extracts  from  its  dialogue  are  made  use  of,  being 
joined  in  a  somewhat  altered  form  with  dialogue  of 
D'Avenant's  own  manufacture.  The  scene  is  shifted 
to  Turin. 

At  the  opening  of  Act  I,  the  Duke  entrusts  the 
government  to  Angelo  and  Escalus  as  in  Shakespeare. 

46 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  47 

Then  enter  Beatrice,  Julietta,  Viola,  and  Balthasar 
(who  has  also  been  imported,  somewhat  altered, 
from  "Much  Ado"),  and  the  scene  is  like  I,  i  of 
*'  Much  Ado."  On  the  announcement  of  Benedick's 
entrance,  the  ladies  step  behind  the  hangings  and  then 
Escalus  informs  Benedick  that  the  latter's  brother  is 
now  the  head  of  the  government.  Lucio  comes  In 
and  tells  of  the  revival  of  an  old  law,  which  is  con- 
sidered a  law  against  lovers  (whence  the  new  title). 
Beatrice,  Julietta,  and  Viola  then  appear  and  the  wit 
combat  between  Benedick  and  Beatrice  from  "  Much 
Ado  about  Nothing"  I,  i,  follows.  Viola  Is  a  sort 
of  duplication  of  Beatrice.  All  of  the  company  next 
go  to  the  presence  of  Angelo,  who  is  expecting  them, 
except  Lucio,  to  whom  a  servant  makes  known  Clau- 
dio's  imprisonment.  The  rest  of  the  act  is  made  up 
of  "  Measure  for  Measure  "  I,  3,  4,  and  5,  the  al- 
tered Balthasar  being  unnecessarily  introduced  as  one 
of  the  characters  in  the  action. 

Act  II  Is  at  first  like  "  Measure  for  Measure  " 
II,  I  down  to  "  Enter  Elbow,  etc.,"  except  that  Bene- 
dick has  the  part  of  Escalus.  Angelo  then  goes  out 
and  Escalus  enters  and  Informs  Benedick  that  Angelo 
wants  to  marry  his  brother  (Benedick)  to  his  ward 
(Beatrice).  Thereupon  Benedick  and  Lucio  and 
Balthasar,  who  enter  a  little  later  utter  some  of  the 
words  of  Benedick  against  marriage  from  "  Much 
Ado  about  Nothing"  I,  i.  Then  appear  Beatrice 
and  Viola  and  there  follows  a  wit  combat  between 
Benedick  and  Beatrice  in  Imitation  of  Shakespeare. 
Scenes  2  and  3  of  "  Measure  for  Measure  "  II,  are 
introduced  next.  The  scene  shifts  to  the  prison, 
where  Lucio  and  Balthasar  comfort  Claudio,  who 
entrusts  Julietta  to  their  protection.  The  act  ends, 
with  a  part  of  "  Measure  for  Measure  "  II,  4. 


48       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

Act  III  opens  with  the  rest  of  II,  4.  Benedick 
and  Beatrice  then  have  a  scene,  professedly  in  imita- 
tion of  Shakespeare.  She  asks  him  to  steal  his 
brother's  seal  and  use  It  to  free  Claudio.  Viola  en- 
ters and  sings  a  song  she  says  has  been  composed  by 
Lucio.  After  the  song,  Lucio  and  Balthasar  come 
on  the  scene  and  Lucio  avers  that  Benedick  composed 
the  song  and  is  in  love  with  Beatrice.  Beatrice  says 
she  loves  another,  "  suppose  it  is  Signor  Lucio." 
This  causes  Lucio  to  change  face  and  say  that  Bene- 
dick is  not  in  love  with  her,  his  assertion  to  that  effect 
having  been  made,  he  says,  to  get  an  opportunity  to 
sue  for  himself.  That  part  of  "  Measure  for  Meas- 
ure," III,  I,  in  which  the  characters  who  take  part 
are  Isabella,  Claudio,  and  the  Duke,  is  then  intro- 
duced, with  some  changes.  In  the  next  scene,  Bene- 
dick tells  Beatrice  that  he  has  obtained  the  seal  and, 
after  she  goes  out,  Escalus,  who  has  stolen  the  seal, 
asks  Benedick  to  secure  him  in  case  the  plot  fails. 
A  short  scene  in  which  Viola  is  visiting  Julletta  In 
prison  (In  Shakespeare  she  is  not  put  in  prison,  and 
takes  little  part  in  the  action)  ends  the  act.  ^ 

Act  IV  Is  almost  all  D'Avenant's.  Among 
others,  there  Is  a  scene  In  which  Benedick  tells  Bea- 
trice that  they  are  likely  to  be  circumvented  by  a  friar 
and  In  which,  on  her  advising  that  everything  be  made 
to  appear  right  to  the  deputy,  they  make  merry  and 
have  some  dancing,  a  saraband  being  danced  by  Viola ; 
and  a  scene  in  which  Isabella  visits  the  Imprisoned 
Julletta,  who  Implores  her  to  yield  to  Angelo,  but 
who,  on  Isabella's  proposing  that  she  take  her  place  In 
such  a  proceeding,  is  brought  to  herself.  The  rest  of 
the  act  is  made  up  of  some  stuff  between  Benedick  and 
Beatrice,  in  the  course  of  which  it  Is  made  evident 
that  their  plot  is  discovered;  of  the  execution  of  Ber- 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  49 

nardine,  somewhat  like  IV,  3 ;  of  the  formation  of  a 
plot  by  Claudio  for  Julietta's  escape;  and,  finally,  of 
a  scene  between  Angelo  and  Isabella,  in  which  he, 
after  vainly  trying  to  induce  her  to  yield  to  him,  de- 
clares he  is  only  testing  her  virtue. 

The  denouement  in  Act  V  is  so  peculiar  that  a 
somewhat  detailed  description  of  it  may  perhaps  be 
pardoned.  At  the  beginning,  Viola,  Lucio,  Beatrice, 
and  Benedick  sing  verses  of  a  song  and  chorus  in  the 
hearing  of  Angelo  to  hide  an  attempt  by  a  party, 
headed  by  Benedick,  to  rescue  Claudio,  which  at- 
tempt is  defeated  by  the  Duke  (as  a  friar).  Bene- 
dick has  been  partly  successful,  but  the  Provost  ex- 
hibits a  head  supposed  to  be  Claudio's  from  the  bat- 
tlements. The  Duke  then  makes  himself  known  and 
orders  Angelo  and  Benedick  to  be  put  in  prison. 
After  much  roundabout  action,  Angelo,  who  sup- 
poses himself  lost  when  Claudio  is  reported  dead, 
comes  out  in  safety  and  is  given  Isabella;  Claudio, 
who,  of  course,  has  not  been  killed,  is  made  happy 
with  Julietta;  and  Benedick  and  Beatrice  are  brought 
together.  As  will  have  been  noticed,  the  character 
of  Mariana  has  been  rejected  altogether.  Such  is 
the  wretched  hodgepodge  which  D'Avenant  had  the 
effrontery  to  put  forward  as  an  improvement  on 
Shakespeare. 

The  chief  dramatic  change  is  seen  to  be  in  the 
conception  of  Angelo,  who,  instead  of  being  a  scoun- 
drel who  meets  with  a  better  fate  than  he  deserves, 
is  made,  as  the  hero  of  the  play,  a  model  of  virtue, 
whose  attempt  to  seduce  Isabella  is  represented  as 
simply  a  curious  experiment  to  find  a  wife  for  the 
good  man  who  is  to  be  the  Duke's  (an  old  man  in 
D'Avenant)  successor.  The  reason  for  this  elevation 
of  Angelo  was  to  have  a  thoroughly  estimable  hero, 


50       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

who  should  conform  to  that  "  rule  of  art,"  which  re- 
quires the  hero  and  heroine  to  be  without  actual  blem- 
ish. Decidedly  is  this  treatment  inferior  to  Shake- 
speare's, the  action  being  more  clumsily  managed  and 
the  omission  of  Mariana  depriving  us  of  the  pathos 
of  Angelo's  treachery  to  her. 

In  this  play  is  the  first  manifestation  of  a  dramatic 
theory  and  practice  which  characterizes  D'Avenant's 
alterations.  I  refer  to  that  duplication  of  characters 
and  scenes  which  appears  in  only  too  full  development 
in  his  "  Macbeth  "  and  in  his  and  Dryden's  "  Tem- 
pest." Here  it  is  little  more  than  a  slight  anticipation, 
the  character  of  Viola  being  introduced  more  to  give 
occasion  for  singing  and  dancing  than  to  "  illustrate  " 
or  "  commend  "  the  character  of  Beatrice. 

Of  the  reprehensible  device  of  lifting  Benedick 
and  Beatrice  from  "  Much  Ado  "  and  thrusting  them 
in  here,  where  they  really  are  out  of  place  and  unneces- 
sary, little  need  be  said.  The  only  conceivable  reason 
for  it  was  to  provide  spicy  dialogue  for  the, audience. 
D'Avenant  knew  that  these  characters  in  Shakespeare 
furnish  abundance  of  it  and  he  was  fatuous  ^ough 
to  believe  he  could  improve  on  it  and  imitate  it. 

D'Avenant,  as  usual  with  his  kind,  takes  unwar- 
rantable liberties  with  Shakespeare's  diction,  often 
changing  it  out  of  mere  caprice.  Much  of  what  he 
adds  of  his  own  composition  is  put  in  rime.  This  all 
results  in  some  of  the  most  wretched  poetry  —  it  is 
almost  straining  courtesy  to  give  it  that  name  —  to 
be  found  in  the  realm  of  the  drama. 

There  is  to  be  noticed,  also,  the  significant  change 
in  moral  attitude  shown  by  the  new  title.  In  Shake- 
speare, the  old  law,  the  revival  of  which  is  responsible 
for  Claudio's  imprisonment,  is  not  regarded  as  a  law 
against  lovers  in  general,  but  against  illicit  lovers. 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  51 

Shakespeare's   title    Is    sufficiently   Indicative   of   his 
higher  moral  point  of  view. 

In  conclusion  I  cannot  do  better  than  to  quote 
Charles  Knight's  comment  on  this  play,  and  on  the 
alterations  generally,  in  his  "History  of  Opinion  on 
the  Writings  of  Shakespeare:"  '"The  Law  against 
Lovers  '  was  in  principle  one  of  the  worst  of  these 
alterations;  for  It  was  a  hash  of  two  plays.  .  . 
This  was  indeed  to  destroy  the  organic  life  of  the 
author.  But  It  Is  one  of  the  manifestations  of  the 
vitality  of  Shakespeare  that,  going  about  their  altera- 
tions in  the  regular  way,  according  to  the  rules  of  art, 
the  most  stupid  and  prosaic  of  his  Improvers  have 
been  unable  to  deprive  the  natural  man  of  his  vigor, 
even  by  their  most  violent  depletions." 

This  play  was  again  altered  by  the  dramatist  and 
critic,  Charles  Gildon,  one  of  the  half-hearted  de- 
fenders of  Shakespeare  against  Rymer  and  his  kind. 
Gildon  admired  Shakespeare,  but  deprecated  his 
"lack  of  art."  So,  to  give  an  example  of  what 
Shakespeare  might  have  done  If  he  had  had  the 
knowledge  of  dramatic  principles  that  our  critic's 
living  in  a  later  and  more  enlightened  age  and  his 
greater  learning  had  brought  to  him,  he  attempted  to 
Improve  "  Measure  for  Measure."  Unfortunately 
for  Mr.  Gildon,  he  only  made  evident  thereby  his 
own  lack  of  genius  and  of  genuine  dramatic  art.  The 
full  title  of  Glldon's  remodeling  Is  "  Measure  for 
Measure,  or  Beauty  the  Best  Advocate,  written  origi- 
nally by  Mr.  Shakespeare  and  now  very  much  al- 
tered with  additions  of  several  entertainments  of 
music."  It  was  acted  and  printed  In  1760.  The 
prologue  by  Oldmlxon,  a  part  of  which  Is  quoted.  Is 
Interesting  for  Its  depreciatory  comment  on  the  taste 
of  the  time. 


52       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

"  No  more  let  labored  scenes,  with  pain,  be  wrought, 
What  least  is  wanting  in  a  play  is  thought. 
Let  neither  dance,  nor  music,  be  forgot, 
Nor  scenes,  no  matter  for  the  sense  or  plot. 
Such  things  we  own  in  Shakespeare's  days  might  do. 
But  then  his  audience  did  not  judge  like  you." 

The  scene  is  laid  in  Turin,  as  in  D'Avenant,  and 
the  borrowed  character  of  Balthasar  is  another 
change  for  which  Gildon  was  indebted  to  his  prede- 
cessor. The  comic  underplot  is,  of  course,  likewise 
rejected. 

In  Act  I,  Lucio  tells  Balthasar,  who  has  just  re- 
turned from  the  wars,  that  the  Duke  is  to  travel  in- 
cognito, that  Apgelo  has  been  made  deputy,  and  that 
Claudio  must  die  to-morrow  on  account  of  the  revival 
of  old  laws,  although  Escalus  has  pleaded  for  him 
and  has  provided  music  and  opera  to  melt  Angelo. 
Then  follows  a  scene  like  parts  of  Shakespeare's 
II,  I  and  II,  2.  It  may  be  interesting  to  quote  at 
this  point  a  passage  from  the  latter,  as  transformed 
by  the  two  revisers,  for  the  sake  of  comparing  both 
with  the  original  and  Gildon's  with  D'Avenant's. 
Thereby  will  be  exhibited  the  result  of  the  "  refining  " 
of  the  barbarous  language  of  Shakespeare  and  will 
be  disclosed  in  full  measure  Gildon's  obligation  to 
D'Avenant,  which  he  failed  to  acknowledge. 

"  If  men  could  thunder 
As  great  Jove  does,  we  ne'er  should  be  at  quiet. 
For  every  cholerick  petty  officer 
Would  use  the  magazine  of  heaven  for  thunder; 
Nothing  but  thunder:     Oh!  Merciful  heaven! 
Thou  rather  with  thy  sharp  and  sulphurous  bolt 
Dost  split  the  knotty  and  obdurate  oak 
Than  the  soft  myrtle.     Oh !  but  man,  proud  man 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  53 

(Dressed  in  a  little  brief  authority, 
Most  ignorant  of  what  he  thinks  himself 
Assured),  in  his  frail  glassy  essence,  like 
An  angry  ape,  plays  such  fantastic  tricks 
Before  high  heaven,  as  would  make  angels  laugh, 
If  they  were  mortal  and  had  spleens  like  us." 

So  Glldon ;  now  let  us  have  D'Avenant. 

If  men  could  thunder 

As  great  Jove  does,  Jove  ne'er  would  quiet  be. 

For  every  cholerick  petty  oilficer 

Would  use  his  magazine  in  heaven  for  thunder; 

We  nothing  should  but  thunder  hear.    Sweet  heaven ! 

Thou  rather  with  thy  stiff  and  sulphurous  bolt 

Dost  split  the  knotty  and  obdurate  oak 

Than  the  soft  myrtle.     O  but  man,  proud  man, 

Drest  in  a  little  brief  authority. 

Most  ignorant  of  what  he  thinks  himself 

Assured,  does  in  his  glassy  essence,  like 

An  angry  ape,  play  such  fantastic  tricks 

Before  high  heaven,  as  would  make  angels  laugh, 

If  they  were  mortal  and  had  spleens  like  us." 

Isabella  is  told  by  Angelo  to  return  "  as  soon  as  the 
opera  is  over,"  and  then  is  given  the  first  "  entertain- 
ment "  of  "  The  Loves  of  Dido  and  JEneas,  a  mask 
in  four  musical  entertainments."  At  the  end  of  the 
act,  Angelo  soliloquizes  on  his  love  for  Isabella. 

Act  II  opens  like  II,  4.  If  Isabella  is  going  to 
comply  with  Angelo's  desire  she  is  to  meet  him  at  the 
opera.  In  the  second  scene,  Angelo  tells  the  solicitous 
Escalus  that  he  shall  rigorously  enforce  the  law  in 
the  case  of  Claudio,  and  then  the  second  entertain- 
ment is  given,  Angelo  declares  that  it  is  unavailing 
to  ease  his  pain.  In  the  third  scene,  which  Is  at  the 
prison,   Friar  Thomas   informs  the   Duke  that  the 


54       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

latter  has  long  been  mistaken  in  Angelo,  who,  the 
Friar  declares,  is  married  to  Mariana.  The  Duke  in 
the  next  scene  visits  Claudio  and  becomes  convinced 
of  his  innocence.  A  little  is  borrowed  here  from 
Shakespeare's  I,  3  and  II,  3.  In  the  last  scene  of  the 
act,  the  Duke  interviews  Julietta,  who  is  also  in 
prison,  as  in  D'Avenant.  She  declares  herself  mar- 
ried to  Claudio  and  the  Duke  promises  to  help  them. 

Act  III,  scene  i  is  for  the  most  part  like  Shake- 
speare's III,  I,  but  besides  some  alterations  by  Gildon 
has  additions  from  D'Avenant.  The  conversation 
between  the  Duke  and  Isabella  is  put  in  verse.  In 
scene  2,  the  third  entertainment  is  given  before  An- 
gelo and  others.  Angelo  speaks  of  contradictory 
letters  from  the  Duke  and  says,  "  No  Isabella  yet." 
She  enters,  however,  at  the  close  of  the  entertainment. 

Act  IV,  scene  i,  is  a  third  scene  between  Angelo 
and  Isabella,  in  which  Gildon  again  borrows  from 
D'Avenant.  Angelo  tries  to  persuade  her  to  yield 
to  him  and  gives  her  a  casket  of  diamonds,  which  she 
takes,  as  she  says  aside,  to  give  to  Mariana  as  proof 
of  Angelo's  guilt.  She  promises  to  return  ^in  two 
hours.  Scene  2  is  like  IV,  i  of  the  original.  Isabella 
gives  Mariana  the  casket  and  tells  her  to  take  her 
place  with  Angelo.  Scene  3,  which  is  at  the  prison, 
is  like  Shakespeare's  IV,  2  from  "  Enter  Claudio  " 
to  Angelo's  letter  to  the  provost,  inclusive.  Then 
Julietta  and  Claudio  have  a  farewell  interview,  at 
the  end  of  which  she  faints  and  is  carried  off.  The 
provost  is  convinced  of  Claudio's  innocence  and  tells 
the  Duke  (friar)  he  will  do  as  he  advises.  Isabella 
enters  and  has  an  interview  with  the  Duke  as  in  IV,  3. 

Act  V  is  badly  mangled.  Scene  i  is  partly  like 
IV,  4  and  partly  like  V,  i  (somewhat  shortened). 
Angelo  is  immediately  denounced  by  the  Duke,  who 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  55 

says  that  he  was  himself  contriver  of  this  scene  and 
that  Angelo  shall  be  executed  on  the  same  block  on 
which  Claudio  was.  The  play  is  then  made  to  end 
about  as  in  Shakespeare.  As  another  example  of  the 
reviser's  own  lack  of  art  may  be  instanced  the  fact 
that  the  lines  of  the  Duke's,  asking  Angelo  to  forgive 
the  provost  for  having  sent  him  Ragozine's  head  for 
Claudio's,  are  retained  although  the  part  of  the  third 
scene  of  Act  IV  relating  to  the  sending  of  the  pirate's 
head  has  been  omitted.  At  the  conclusion  all  the 
characters  listen  to  the  fourth  entertainment. 

This  alteration  was  avowedly  made  to  make  the 
play  more  palatable  by  the  addition  of  spectacle, 
music,  and  dancing.  Indeed,  it  almost  seems  as  if  the 
entertainments  were  more,  important  than  the  play  it- 
self, which  is  manipulated  to  make  occasion  for  them. 
However,  they  are  out  of  place,  are  insipid,  cause  the 
omission  of  much  of  the  original,  and  disfigure  and 
cheapen  the  play.  They  were  doubtless  suggested,  as 
are  many  things  in  the  conduct  of  the  action,  by  the 
"  Law  against  Lovers."  This  play  copies  that  one 
in  the  depression  of  characters,  especially  that  of  Isa- 
bella. It  was  highly  contemptible  in  Gildon  to  bor- 
row from  that  source,  particularly  without  acknowl- 
edgment. The  only  commendation  that  can  be  given 
to  Gildon  is  for  retaining  so  much  more  than  D'Aven- 
ant  did  of  Shakespeare's  play  and  for  rejecting  the 
additions  from  "  Much  Ado  about  Nothing."  But 
when  all  allowances  are  made,  Gildon's  production 
is  a  sad  mutilation,  possessing  interest  only  as  an- 
other example  of  the  results  of  that  fondness  for 
operatic  features  which  disfigured  so  many  of  the 
representations  of  Shakespeare's  plays  during  the 
eighteenth  century. 


56       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

The  Comedy  of  Errors 

This  play,  which  was  a  romanticization  of  a  clas- 
sical farce  and  which  observed  the  unities  of  time  and 
place,  virtually  afforded  no  opportunity  for  alteration 
along  the  lines  of  academic  principles  of  art,  and  so 
we  find  none.  A  number  of  adaptations  of  part  or 
all  of  it  were  made,  however,  but  they  will  call  for 
little  more  than  bare  mention,  and  in  two  cases  that 
is  all  that  can  be  given. 

The  first  is  a  farce  called  "  Everybody  Mis- 
taken," which  was  given  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  in 
March,  17 16,  and,  according  to  one  authority,  is 
by  one  William  Taverner.  It  was  never  printed  and 
its  relation  to  its  original  is  unknown. 

The  second  is  a  comedy  with  the  title  "All  Mis- 
taken," by  William  Shirley,  The  Biographia  Dra- 
matica  says  it  had  great  additions  but  was  neither 
printed  nor  acted. 

The  adaptation  by  Hull,  deputy  manager  of 
Covent  Garden  Theatre,  given  there  in  1779,  does 
not  differ  materially  from  the  original.  Says  Mrs. 
Inchbald,  in  her  remarks  on  this  play:  "This  drama 
was  scarcely  known  to  the  stage  of  the  last  century, 
till  Mr.  Hull  .  .  .  curtailed  and  made  other 
judicious  alterations  and  arrangements,  by  which  it 
was  rendered  attractive  for  some  nights,  and  after- 
wards placed  upon  the  list  of  plays  that  are  generally 
performed  during  every  season."  Later  opinion  may 
differ  with  her  as  to  the  wisdom  of  making  such 
changes  as  that  of  "  chain  "  to  bracelet,  and  numerous 
others  almost  equally  unnecessary  and  wanton;  of 
adding  much  of  his  own  versifying;  of  leaving  out 
some  of  the  best  (as  the  description  of  Pinch)  ;  of 
introducing  a  new  character,  Hermia,  a  cousin  to 
Adriana,  simply  to  sing  a  song;  and,  lastly,  of  tagging 
on  the  ridiculous  moral : 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  57 

"  Our  lesson  this 
That  misery  past  endears  our  present  bliss, 
Wherein  we  read  with  wonder  and  delight, 
This  sacred  truth,  '  Whatever  is,  is  right.'  " 

The  fourth  is  a  three-act  comedy  entitled  "  The 
Twins,  or  Which  Is  Which,"  composed  by  a  Mr. 
William  Woods,  performed  at  Edinburgh  In  1780, 
and  printed  in  a  collection  of  farces  in  1786.  Act  I 
consists  of  Shakespeare's  I,  2,  II,  2,  and  III,  i,  with 
abridgments,  and  various  passages  from  the  omitted 
scenes.  Antlpholus  of  Syracuse,  for  Instance,  Is  made 
to  relate  the  early  history  of  his  family  as  given  In 
the  omitted  first  scene  of  Act  I.  Act  II  Is  made  up 
of  parts  of  III,  2,  IV,  i,  and  IV,  4,  while  Act  III  Is 
V,  I,  much  abridged.    No  change  is  made  In  the  plot. 

Much  Ado  about  Nothing 

D'Avenant's  "  Law  against  Lovers,"  In  which 
some  of  the  characters  and  much  of  the  dialogue  of 
"  Much  Ado  about  Nothing  "  are  amalgamated  with 
"  Measure  for  Measure,"  is  fully  described  under 
that  play,  and  so  need  not  detain  us  here. 

One  of  the  strangest  of  all  the  alterations  of 
Shakespeare  is  that  made  of  this  play  by  the  forgotten 
dramatist  James  Miller,  under  the  title  of  "  The 
Universal  Passion,"  which  was  acted  nine  times  and 
printed  In  1737.  The  Old  Variorum  editors  put  it 
down  as  a  pasticcio  of  "  Much  Ado  about  Nothing," 
"As  You  Like  It,"  and  "Love's  Labours  Lost." 
This  is  far  from  being  true,  for  there  Is  nothing  from 
either  of  the  latter  two.  Another  writer  describes  It 
as  an  alteration  of  "All's  Well  that  Ends  Well." 
It  is  evident  that  these  authorities  had  not  read  or 
even  glanced  at  Miller's  play.    Anyone  seeing  simply 


58       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

the  list  of  characters  might  easily  be  led  to  think  it 
an  amalgamation  of  several  of  Shakespeare's  plays, 
but  there  is  no  excuse  for  stating  an  unverified  infer- 
ence as  a  fact. 

The  play  is,  in  truth,  a  wretched  jumble  of 
"Much  Ado  about  Nothing"  and  Moliere's  "Prin- 
cess of  Elis."  Miller  in  his  prologue  acknowledges 
his  indebtedness  to  Shakespeare,  but  says  nothing  of 
Moliere. 

The  scene  is  laid  at  Genoa,  and  the  characters 
(with  their  Shakespearean  equivalents)  are  as  fol- 
lows: 

Protheus,  a  nobleman  of  Genoa  (Benedick)  ; 
Joculo,  the  court  jester; 

Bellario,  a  young  Venetian  lord   (Claudio)  ; 
Gratiano,  the  Duke  of  Genoa   (Leonato)  ; 
Byron,  bastard  brother  to  the   Duke    (Don 

John)  ; 
Gremio  (Borachio  and  Conrade)  ; 
Lucentius ; 
Porco  (Dogberry)  ; 

Asino  (Verges)  ;  ^ 

Lucilia  (Hero)  ; 
Liberia  (Beatrice)  ; 
Delia   (Margaret). 

Most  of  the  First  Act  is  from  Moliere,  somewhat 
altered.  Bellario  is  in  love  with  Lucilia,  but,  as  she 
is  in  the  habit  of  treating  her  suitors  with  contempt, 
he  determines  to  aftect  indifference  to  her.  He  en- 
gages Joculo  to  help  him.  Gratiano,  the  father  of 
Lucilia,  expresses  to  her  his  wish  that  she  should 
marry,  and  she  declares  to  him  her  aversion  to  matri- 
mony.    The  remainder  of  the  act,  consisting  mostly 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  59 

of  a  wit  combat  between  Protheus  and  Liberia,  is 
from  the  first  and  third  scenes  of  the  First  Act  of 
"  iMiich  Ado." 

Mohere  furnishes  almost  all  of  Act  II,  although 
some  dialogue  is  taken  from  Shakespeare.  The  action 
is  chiefly  occupied  with  the  affairs  of  Bellario  and 
Lucilia,  each  of  whom  pretends  to  be  in  love  with 
someone  else. 

In  the  Third  Act,  the  first  part  of  which  is  chiefly 
from  Moliere,  Lucilia  consents  to  take  Bellario  after 
Joculo  tells  her  that  her  suitor  has  rescued  her  father 
from  two  ruflians  and  after  her  father  himself  urges 
her  to  do  so.  At  this  point  Miller  deserts  Moliere. 
Lucilia  is  speedily  and  completely  metamorphosed 
into  Shakespeare's  Hero,  and  the  play  follows 
"  Much  Ado  "  in  the  main,  though  with  many  changes 
in  minor  details,  from  Don  Pedro's  proposal,  in  Act 
II,  I,  to  bring  about  a  match  between  Benedick  and 
Beatrice,  to  the  end. 

In  attempting  to  improve  upon  his  original,  the 
reviser  has  fallen  into  many  absurdities.  In  particu- 
lar, the  Fifth  Act  is  badly  confused.  For  example, 
he  introduces  a  scene  between  Joculo  and  Delia  in 
which  she  begs  that  worthy  to  intercede  for  her  with 
Lucilia,  at  a  time  when  that  lady  is  supposed  to  be 
dead. 

Miller  alters  the  dialogue  greatly,  introduces  lines 
from  "  Twelfth  Night "  and  "  Two  Gentlemen  of 
Verona,"  and  altogether  has  succeeded  in  making  a 
most  wretched  amalgamation  of  two  good  plays. 

It  cannot  be  supposed  that  a  compilation  from 
Shakespeare  and  Moliere  should  be  a  wholly  bad 
play.  Even  the  most  violent  treatment  cannot  rob 
two  such  geniuses  of  their  vigor,  but  they  have  cer- 
tainly suffered  sadly  at  the  hands  of  Miller.    It  is  not 


6o       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

worth  while  to  do  more  than  censure  the  general  prin- 
ciple this  alteration  exhibits.  To  make  a  play  by 
combining  different  plays  of  the  same  author's,  or 
plays  in  the  same  language,  is  bad  enough,  but  to 
make  one  out  of  the  plays  of  authors  writing  in  dif- 
ferent languages  is  too  contemptible  a  practice  on 
which  to  waste  any  words.  Besides,  in  this  case, 
what  an  absurdity  to  metamorphose  suddenly  Mo- 
liere's  vivacious  heroine,  who  somewhat  resembles 
Beatrice,  into  the  quiet-spirited  Hero! 

As  a  final  word  on  Miller's  lack  of  art,  it  may  be 
said  that  whenever  he  varies  from  his  originals  he 
alters  for  the  worse  and  often  succeeds  In  spoiling 
scenes  or  characters.  All  will  agree  that  this  is  about 
the  most  outrageous  Instance  conceivable  of  want  of 
reverence  for  two  great  masters.  The  length  to  which 
a  would-be  Improver  of  Shakespeare  may  go  is  here 
strikingly  exemplified. 

Love's  Labour's  Lost 

There  exists  a  rather  curious  alteration  of  this 
play  which  was  never  acted  but  has  been  printed. 
The  title  page  reads,  "The  Students,  a  comedy  altered 
from  Shakespeare's  Love's  Labour's  Lost  and 
adapted  to  the  stage,  1762."  Apparently  its  merit 
was  not  regarded  even  in  those  days  as  sufiicient  to 
achieve  Its  avowed  purpose.  Its  author,  who  has 
wisely  chosen  to  remain  unknown,  has  occasionally 
made  perhaps  a  minor  improvement,  but  for  the  most 
part  his  changes,  especially  In  the  characterizations 
and  dialogue,  are  bad. 

The  play  Is  furnished  with  a  prologue  and  epi- 
logue. In  the  former  there  Is  Incidentally  exhibited 
evidence  of  the  fact  that  Shakespeare  was  popular 
with  the  masses,  and  that  by  this  time  they  were  get- 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  6i 

ting  disgusted  with  the  mutilated  versions,  the  so- 
called  improvements,  of  his  plays  that  were  pre- 
sented for  their  approval  by  those  who  deemed  them- 
selves the  masters  of  dramatic  art.    The  author  says : 

"  Should  he  fail,  he  hopes  the  wits  will  own, 
There's  enough  of  Shakespeare's  still,  to  please  the 
town." 

The  characters  of  Holofernes  and  Sir  Nathaniel 
are  omitted. 

Up  to  the  third  scene  of  Act  II,  the  play  is  mostly 
like  Shakespeare's  first  two  acts,  with  the  exception  of 
considerable  omission  and  rearrangement.  It  may  be 
mentioned,  in  passing,  that  the  rime  is  removed  in  the 
revision  of  the  dialogue.  At  this  point  a  new  scene 
is  introduced  between  Costard  and  Jaquenetta,  which 
is  very  silly,  as  he  is  afraid  to  say  much  to  her.  The 
fourth  scene  has  some  new  features.  A  clown  comes 
in  carrying  a  coat  for  Costard,  which  Biron  takes 
and  puts  on  to  make  himself  look  like  its  owner. 
After  the  departure  of  the  clown,  Biron  soliloquizes 
as  at  the  end  of  Shakespeare's  Third  Act. 

Act  III  opens  with  the  King's  reading  the  poem 
of  IV,  3,  "  So  sweet  a  kiss,"  etc.  Biron,  dressed  like 
Costard,  takes  up  the  paper.  The  King  goes  out, 
and  then  Dumain  enters  and  asks  the  supposed  Cos- 
tard to  take  his  paper  to  Katharine.  After  Dumain's 
exit,  Longaville  appears  and  gives  the  messenger  a 
missive  for  Maria.  The  second  scene  opens  with  a 
few  lines  from  IV,  i.  Then  Rosaline  boasts  that 
Biron  is  her  slave,  but  Maria  says  the  others  are  con- 
tent with  a  more  moderate  love.  Biron,  as  Costard, 
comes  on  the  scene  and  gives  papers  to  the  Princess, 
Katharine,  and  Maria,  who  thereupon  laugh  at  the 


62       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

recently  boastful  Rosaline  because  there  is  none  for 
her.  Katharine  reads  "On  a  day,  alack  the  day!" 
but  the  others  do  not  read.  They  are  afraid  of  being 
tricked,  so  they  tell  Biron  to  return  the  messages  with 
the  answer  that  they  are  not  to  be  wooed.  In  the 
third  scene,  Biron  meets  Jaquenetta,  who  thinks  study 
has  improved  Costard.  The  real  Costard  then  comes 
in,  but  Biron  succeeds  in  outfacing  him  and  convinc- 
ing Jaquenetta  that  he  is  the  true  Costard.  After 
Biron  and  she  go  out,  Dumain  enters  and  gives  Cos- 
tard a  beating  on  his  denying  having  had  any  letter 
for  Katharine.  The  poor  fool  by  this  time  neither 
knows  where  he  is  nor  who  he  is. 

In  the  first  scene  of  the  next  act,  Armado  tells 
Dull  to  apprehend  Costard.  In  the  second  scene, 
Biron,  as  Costard,  gives  the  King  and  Dumain  the 
returned  missives,  but  exchanges  them  and  in  this 
way  the  love  affairs  are  discovered.  Biron  then  goes 
out,  but  soon  reappears  in  his  own  character  and 
pokes  fun  at  his  companions,  who  are  unable  to  make 
him  confess  being  in  love.  Dull,  Costard,  Armado, 
and  Jaquenetta  enter,  Armado  accuses  Costard  of 
what  Biron  has  done,  and  poor  Costard  is  declar^  to 
be  mad  and  ordered  to  be  confined.  After  the  prin- 
cipal characters  leave  the  scene,  Armadp  makes  love 
to  Jaquenetta  and  is  discovered  thus  doing  by  Biron, 
who  has  returned  to  order  him  to  prepare  a  masque 
to  entertain  the  Princess  and  the  other  ladies.  Some 
speeches  from  V,  2,  are  used  in  the  third  scene.  Boyet 
announces  that  the  king  and  the  others  are  coming 
with  "  some  scene  of  merriment  or  antic  show."  The 
ladies  agree  together  not  to  listen  to  the  wooing  of 
the  men. 

In  Act  V,  the  first  scene  is  between  Armado  and 
Q.  player.     Armado  asks  him  to  present  the  masque 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  63 

of  the  Nine  Worthies,  but  he  prefers  to  give  a  comic 
dance.  The  second  scene  includes  much  of  Shake- 
speare's V,  2,  and  IV,  3.  The  suits  of  the  men  appear 
to  be  about  to  fail  completely,  when  Biron  tries  his 
hand  on  Rosaline,  who,  at  last,  on  his  threatening  to 
leave,  gives  up  resistance  with,  "  I  was  only  joking," 
and  then  all  is  over.  The  "  antic  "  scene  is  then  given 
and  the  play  ends.  Love's  labor  is  not  lost,  even 
temporarily.  There  is  to  be  no  waiting  a  twelve- 
month, so  Shakespeare's 

"  Our  wooing  doth  not  end  like  an  old  play; 
Jack  hath  not  Jill ;  these  ladies'  courtesy 
Might  well  have  made  our  sport  a  comedy," 

becomes 

"  Our  wooing  now  doth  end  like  an  old  play; 
Jack  has  his  Jill;  these  ladies'  courtesy 
Hath  nobly  made  our  sport  a  comedy." 

Practically  the  only  reason  discoverable  for  making 
this  alteration  appears  to  be  to  produce  a  new  play 
with  numerous  farcical  situations.  No  principle  of 
art  seems  to  have  been  especially  involved.  The 
author  apparently  thought  that  the  characters  of 
Holofernes  and  Sir  Nathaniel,  in  whom  Shakespeare 
satirized  mere  phrase-making,  detracted  from  the 
unity  of  the  comedy,  and  so  omitted  them.  This  is 
doubtless  a  judicious  change  for  stage  purposes,  as 
their  pedantic  phraseology,  however  amusing  in  the 
closet,  could  not  have  been  very  attractive  to  an 
audience.  Perhaps  the  chief  change  in  the  action  is 
the  different  way  of  making  Biron  acquainted  with 
the  fact  that  his  comrades  are  forsworn.  That,  sim- 
ply by  putting  on  Costard's  coat,  he  could  be  so  com- 


64       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

pletely  disguised  as  not  to  be  recognized  by  his 
friends,  necessitates  too  great  a  draft  on  the  imagina- 
tion. The  situation  is  not  an  easy  one  to  manage  any- 
how, but  Shakespeare's  art,  even  when,  as  here,  it  is 
far  short  of  its  future  development,  has  contrived 
much  better  than  his  unknown  "  improver."  The 
character  of  Biron  is  degraded  by  making  the  part, 
to  a  considerable  extent,  that  of  a  buffoon.  Costard, 
who  is  introduced  in  the  original  simply  to  be  an  in- 
strument to  betray  Biron  to  his  friends,  is  made  too 
prominent  here,  but  this  is  for  the  sake  of  farce. 
Keeping  the  friends  so  long  ignorant  of  each  other's 
falling  in  love  is  an  unnecessary  change,  it  being 
better  to  have  them  find  each  other  out  and  so  to  act 
in  concert  in  furthering  their  suits  than  to  make  Biron 
betray  them  to  each  other  as  he  does  in  this  play. 
The  ladies'  disguising  themselves  and  making  each 
of  the  suitors  pay  court  to  the  wrong  mistress  Is  much 
better  comedy,  as  paying  them  back  in  their  own  coin, 
than  their  simply  holding  out  to  give  in  at  last.  One 
minor  change  seemed  to  Genest  a  "happy"  one, 
namely,  the  omission  of  Armado's  letter  to  the  king 
as  a  letter  and  the  putting  of  the  contents  info  the 
character's  lines.  We  strongly  doubt  if  this  adaptation 
would  have  been  a  marked  success,  even  in  its  day, 
had  it  succeeded  in  being  put  on  the  stage. 


CHAPTER  IV.    A  MIDSUMMER  NIGHT'S 

DREAM— THE   MERCHANT  OF 

VENICE  — AS    YOU    LIKE 

IT  — THE  TAMING 

OF  THE  SHREW 

A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream 

THE  list  of  treatments  of  the  whole  or  of 
parts  of  this  play  is  one  of  the  longest 
of  its  kind,  but  none  of  them  are  of  much 
importance  and  there  is  consequently  little 
to  be  said. 

The  first  in  the  catalogue  is  "The  Humours  of 
Bottom  the  Weaver  "  by  Robert  Cox.  This,  a  copy 
of  which  I  have  not  seen,  is,  as  its  title  and  author  in-, 
dicate,  a  droll,  as  such  plays  were  called,  or  farce, 
made  up,  in  this  instance,  from  the  comic  parts  of 
Shakespeare's  play.  These  drolls  were  performed, 
while  the  stage  was  suppressed,  by  stealth,  under  the 
pretence  of  rope  dancing.  The  author  of  this  one, 
Cox,  used  to  act  the  principal  parts  himself,  and  he 
became  a  great  favorite  both  in  London  and  In  the 
country. 

"A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream  "  was  performed 
as  an  opera  at  the  Theatre  Royal  in  1692  under  the 
title  of  "The  Fairy  Queen."  The  author  is  un- 
known. On  the  whole,  it  does  not  differ  materially, 
as  to  plot  and  action,  from  the  original.  Some 
changes  are  made  in  the  dialogue,  there  is  some  omis- 
sion and  transposition,  and  a  great  deal  of  singing, 
dancing,  and  machinery  is  introduced.  Downes  says 
that  the  court  and  town  were  wonderfully  satisfied 

65 


66       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

with  "  The  Fairy  Queen,"  but  that  the  expense  was  so 
great  the  company  got  very  little  by  it.  The  lyric 
and  spectacular  elements  of  "  A  Midsummer  Night's 
Dream  "  make  turning  it  into  an  opera  of  this  kind 
more  legitimate  than  so  treating  almost  any  other 
Shakespearean  play,  and  no  great  condemnation  is 
merited  for  doing  it.  In  this  case,  however,  the 
author,  as  it  but  too  usual  in  such  adaptations,  altered 
and  omitted  unwarrantably  and  sometimes  absurdly. 
Next  on  the  list  is  "  Pyramus  and  Thisbe,"  a 
comic  masque,  by  Richard  Leveridge,  171 6.  In 
this,  the  burlesque  interlude  of  Shakespeare's  play  is 
put  into  the  form  of  an  Italian  opera  with  the  object 
of  ridiculing  that  species  of  dramatic  exhibition, 
which  the  English  had  taken  up  and  become  extrava- 
gantly fond  of,  to  the  detriment  and  neglect  of  more 
meritorious  music  and  drama  —  so  much  so  indeed, 
that  Addison  was  constrained  to  write  strongly 
against  it.  Let  Leveridge  speak  for  himself  as  to 
the  character  of  his  piece.  "  I  have  made  bold,"  he 
says,  *'  to  dress  out  the  original  in  recitative  and  airs 
after  the  present  Italian  mode."  The  dialogue^iffers 
but  little  from  Shakespeare,  but  there  are  three  new 
characters,  Semibreve,  the  composer,  and  his  friends 
Crotchet  and  Gamut.  The  latter  two  make  the  com- 
ments on  the  singing,  etc.,  and  Semibreve  replies  to 
them  in  a  way  satirical  of  the  Italian  opera.  For  in- 
stance, when  the  wall  has  sung.  Gamut  observes, 
*'  This  is  the  most  musical  partition  I  ever  heard." 
Semibreve  answers,  "  This  is  nothing  to  what  we 
have  abroad  and  by  degrees  I  am  in  hopes  to  bring 
our  dull  English  to  this  polite  taste."  Crotchet  won- 
ders whether  the  lion  is  to  sing.  Semibreve  answers, 
"  Never  wonder  at  that,  for  we  that  have  studied  the 
Italian  opera  may  do  anything  In  this  kind." 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  67 

"  Pyramus  and  Thisbe,"  a  mock  opera,  set  to 
music  by  Mr.  Lampe,  1745,  appears  to  be  the  same 
as  the  preceding,  judging  from  a  comparison  of  it 
with  the  description  of  Leveridge's  piece. 

At  Drury  Lane,  February  3,  1755,  was  acted  a 
new  English  opera  called  "The  Fairies."  This 
piece,  which  is  in  three  acts  and  which  was  produced 
nine  times,  is  usually  attributed  to  Garrlck.  The  dia- 
logue is  compiled  from  "A  Midsummer  Night's 
Dream,"  and  about  twenty-seven  songs  are  added. 
The  clowns  are  omitted  and  consequently  the  episode 
of  Titania's  love  for  Bottom.  The  parts  of  Ly- 
sander  and  Hermia  were  taken  by  two  Italians,  whom 
Wilkinson  says  were  of  great  service,  whereat  Genest 
exclaims,  "  '  Midsummer  Night's  Dream  '  turned  into 
an  opera  and  assisted  by  two  foreigners  must  have 
been  a  blessed  exhibition,  and  highly  to  the  credit  of 
Garrlck,  who  talked  so  much  of  his  zeal  for  Shake- 
speare!  " 

Another  bad  alteration  of  this  play  was  per- 
formed at  Drury  Lane,  November  23,  1763.  This 
time  it  was  turned  into  a  sort  of  opera  with  thirty- 
three  songs,  nearly  the  whole  of  the  mock  play  being 
discarded.  As  usual,  much  of  the  original  dialogue 
Is  omitted,  "  This  alteration,"  says  Genest,  "  was 
attributed  originally  to  Colman,  but  it  seems  to  have 
been  made  by  Garrlck,  Colman,  at  his  desire,  having 
only  superintended  the  rehearsals."  It  was  unsuc- 
cessful, a  second  performance  not  being  given. 

"A  Fairy  Tale,"  in  two  acts,  1763,  is  apparently 
an  abridgment  of  the  preceding.  Act  I,  scene  i,  is 
"  Midsummer  Night's  Dream,"  I,  2,  a  song  with  an 
introduction  and  comments  being  added.  Scene  2  is 
II,  I,  much  shortened,  with  songs  introduced.  One 
song  is  made  up  of  the  description  of  Robin  Good- 


68       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

fellow's  deeds  as  given  in  Shakespeare,  put  in  song 
measure.  Scene  3  is  from  II,  2  (the  fairy  part). 
The  first  scene  of  Act  II  is  III,  i,  abridged.  Puck 
is  represented  as  driving  off  by  a  storm  the  "  me- 
chanicals "  turned  actors,  the  episode  of  the  ass's 
head  being  omitted.  Scene  2  has  a  little  of  III,  2, 
and  is  very  short,  ending  with  the  four-line  song  "  Up 
and  down.  Up  and  down,"  etc.  Scene  3  is  from 
IV,  I,  with  a  duet  and  songs,  one  from  "Henry 
VIII"  (the  first  verse  of  "Orpheus  with  his  lute," 
etc.), and  one  a  version  of  "  Sigh  no  more,"  etc.,  from 
"Much  Ado,"  which  runs  as  follows: 

"  Sigh  no  more,  lady,  sigh  no  more, 
Be  not  inconstant  ever, 
One  foot  on  sea,  and  one  on  shore, 
You  can  be  happy  never." 

Merchant  of  Venice 

One  of  the  most  flagrant  instances  of  literary 
crime  is  the  version  of  this  play  perpetrated  by 
George  Granville,  Lord  Lansdowne,  and  call^  by 
him  "  The  Jew  of  Venice."  It  appeared  in  1701, 
and  held  the  stage  to  the  entire  supplantation  of 
Shakespeare's  play  until  1741,  when  Macklin  gave 
his  celebrated  performance  of  the  original.  Even 
then,  although  it  had  received  its  deathblow,  it  died  a 
lingering  death,  for  some  little  time,  indeed,  appar- 
ently holding  its  own  with  the  original.  This  fact  is 
a  sad  reflection  on  the  taste  of  the  theatre-going  pub- 
lic of  that  day. 

In  his  "Advertisement  to  the  Reader,"  Lans- 
downe justifies  his  undertaking  by  the  examples  of 
the  great  men  who  have  preceded  him  in  the  same 
kind  of  enterprise.    "  Besides  many  others  too  numer- 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  69 

ous  to  mention,"  he  cites  Waller,  the  Earl  of  Roches- 
ter, the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  D'Avenant,  Dryden, 
Shadwell,  and  Tate,  From  his  point  of  view,  surely 
here  was  ample  justification,  but  we  of  a  later  day 
and,  in  some  respects  we  hope,  a  wiser  literary  gen- 
eration, will  not  be  so  impressed  as  he  with  the  weight 
of  his  exemplars. 

The  play  is  provided  with  a  prologue  written  by 
his  friend  Bevill  Higgons,  Esquire,  which  consists  of 
a  dialogue  between  the  laurel-crowned  ghosts  of 
Shakespeare  and  Dryden.  After  some  mutual  com- 
mendation and  some  regret  for  the  depraved  taste 
which  prefers  farces  to  their  scenes,  the  ghost  of 
Shakespeare  is  made,  rather  curiously,  to  utter  the 
sentiments  of  Mr.  Higgons  as  to  this  play  and  its 
author,  and  to  speak  of  himself  in  the  third  person. 

"  The  scenes  in  their  rough  native  dress  were  mine, 
But  now  improved  with  nobler  lustre  shine; 
The  first  rude  sketches  Shakespeare's  pencil  drew, 
But  all  the  shining  masterstrokes  are  new. 
This  play,  ye  critics,  shall  your  fury  stand, 
Adorned  and  rescued  by  a  faultless  hand." 

We  wonder  at  the  blindness  of  a  man  who  could 
write  such  a  prologue  and  at  the  vanity  of  a  man 
who  could  listen  to  its  recitation  as  an  introduction 
to  his  play. 

There  is  no  change  in  plot  in  the  First  Act.  The 
first  scene  is  curtailed  considerably  and  the  diction  is 
changed  unnecessarily  and  arbitrarily  as  is  usual 
throughout  the  play.  The  second  scene  is  rewritten, 
only  three  suitors  being  described,  M.  le  Compte,  the 
Frenchman,  Myn  Heer  Van  Gutts,  a  Dutchman,  who 
is  substituted  for  the  German  of  the  original,  and  the 
Englishman,  who  is  dismissed  without  detailed  char- 


70       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

acterizatlon,  as  he  is  "  the  Frenchman's  ape "  and 
"  an  ape  of  an  ape  must  needs  be  a  strange  monster." 
The  consideration  of  the  Dutchman  as  a  possible 
husband  by  Portia  furnishes  Lansdowne  with  the 
opportunity  to  make  her  utter  this  refinement,  "  La 
Signora  Gutts  !  Oh  hideous  !  What  a  sound  would 
there  be  in  the  mouth  of  an  Italian !  "  The  third 
scene  is  about  as  in  Shakespeare,  but  is  somewhat 
abridged. 

Act  II  is  much  changed.  The  princes  of  Mo- 
rocco and  Arragon  are  omitted  entirely,  a  practice 
which  later  acting  versions  have  generally  adopted. 
Old  Gobbo,  Launcelot,  Salarino,  Salanio,  and  Tubal 
are  also  rejected.  These  omissions  bring  it  about  that 
Lansdowne's  Second  Act  commences  with  the  line, 
"  I  am  bid  forth  to  supper,  Jessica,"  in  the  5th  scene 
of  Act  II  of  Shakespeare's  play.  It  follows  the  origi- 
nal until  Shylock's  exit;  Jessica's  two  lines  are  in- 
creased to  seven;  then  enter  Lorenzo  and  Gratiano, 
and  the  elopement  takes  place.  Great  changes  are 
made  in  the  dialogue.  The  next  scene  is  new,  and 
consists  of  an  "Entertainment"  at  Bassanio's.  The 
only  indebtedness  to  Shakespeare  is  for  a  few  lines, 
Lorenzo's  lines  in  praise  of  music  from  Act  V  being 
inserted  here.  Antonio,  Shylock,  and  others  are 
present  and  music  is  played.  The  characters  drink 
toasts.  Friendship  is  proposed  by  Antonio;  love  and 
Portia  by  Bassanio;  the  sex  in  general  by  Gratiano; 
and  then  Shylock  gives  a  toast  to  his  "  mistress  that 
outshines  them  all,"  "  money,"  "  interest  upon  in- 
terest," which  he  alone  drinks.  This  is  followed  by 
a  masque  of  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  lines,  called 
"  Peleus  and  Thetis,"  which  his  lordship  doubtless 
felicitated  himself  greatly  upon  and  regarded  as 
ample  compensation  for  the  omitted  portions  of  the 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  71 

original.  Here  again  we  feel  compelled  to  differ  with 
him.  After  the  masque,  Bassanio  takes  farewell  of 
Antonio,  the  master  of  the  ship  having  sent  two  serv- 
ants to  desire  Bassanio  to  come  aboard.  This  is 
mostly  from  Shakespeare,  Antonio,  however,  speak- 
ing the  lines  that  in  the  original  Salarino  quotes  to 
Salanio  as  his. 

Act  III  begins  with  the  casket  scene  of  Bassanio's 
choosing,  which  is  altered  somewhat  by  the  addition 
of  borrowings  from  the  two  omitted  casket  scenes  of 
Act  II.  The  parts  of  Gratiano  and  Nerissa  are  en- 
larged, but  the  latter  part  of  the  scene  follows  Shake- 
speare, aside  from  a  few  omissions  and  verbal  changes 
and  from  the  fact  that  at  the  very  end  Lorenzo's  lines 
to  Portia  from  the  fourth  scene  are  inserted.  Scene  2 
is  a  combination  of  Shakespeare's  III,  3,  and  III,  i. 
It  is  laid  in  a  Venetian  jail,  opens  like  III,  3,  and  is 
like  that  scene  for  the  most  part.  The  familiar  pas- 
sage beginning  "To  bait  fish  withal,"  is  put  in  as 
the  answer  to  Antonio's  question,  "  Thou  wilt  not 
take  my  flesh;  what's  that  good  for?  "  Then  follow 
some  prosaic  and  commonplace  lines  of  Lansdowne's, 
in  which  Shylock  is  made  to  lament  that  he  cannot 
recover  the  jewels  and  ducats  that  Jessica  has  taken, 
and  to  tell  Antonio  that  he  (Antonio)  shall  pay  for 
all. 

Act  IV  has  no  great  variation  from  the  origi- 
nal, as  to  the  action,  but  the  changes  of  diction  and  in 
the  conception  of  the  different  characters  as  indicated 
by  their  speeches  and  acts  have  so  transformed  or, 
rather,  transmogrified  the  trial  scene  as  to  detract 
greatly  from,  if  not  altogether  to  remove,  its  dignity. 
Portia  finally,  when  she  finds  Shylock  to  be  merciless, 
throws  aside  her  judicial  decorum  to  display  a  violent 
partisanship,  even  descending  to  offensive  utterances. 


72       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

Shylock,  who  throughout  the  play  has  been  debased 
and  made  a  thoroughly  vulgar,  money-loving  Jew,  a 
striking  contrast  to  Shakespeare's  tragic  figure,  in 
whom  is  concentrated  the  wrath,  malignity,  and  thirst 
for  vengeance  of  a  race  in  which  centuries  of  oppres- 
sion and  persecution  have  fostered  and  developed 
these  feelings  to  an  extreme,  laughs  derisively  at  the 
exhibition  of  friendship  on  the  part  of  Antonio  and 
Bassanio.  To  the  last  are  unsuitably  transferred 
the  sarcastic  counter-comments  of  Gratiano ;  he  seeks 
to  interfere  with  the  apparent  course  of  justice  by 
offering  to  sacrifice  himself  and  by  drawing  to  defend 
Antonio,  the  effect  of  all  of  which  modification  is  a 
decided  loss  of  dignity.  Indeed,  the  whole  scene  as 
altered  by  Lansdowne  is  crude  and  inartistic  in  com- 
parison with  Shakespeare's.  After  Shylock's  condem- 
nation, Portia  asks  Bassanio  for  the  ring,  which  he 
withholds,  although  making  no  mention  of  its  having 
been  the  gift  of  his  wife.  This  is  because  the  refer- 
ence to  the  marriage  ceremony  had  been  omitted  from 
the  casket  scene. 

Act  V  does  not  differ  greatly  from  the  original, 
except  for  changes  in  the  diction.  Bassanio,  hciwever, 
is  represented  as  momentarily  angry  at  Antonio,  to 
whom  he  attributes  his  loss  of  the  ring,  and  Portia 
claims  to  have  obtained  it  by  art  magic,  which  gives 
to  Bassanio  the  opportunity  of  uttering  fifteen  lines 
or  so  of  twaddle  on  that  subject. 

Such  is  the  work  of  the  "faultless  hand"  which 
"  improved  "  Shakespeare's  scenes. 

About  the  only  commendation  that  can  be  given 
to  the  author  of  this  travesty  is  the  very  negative 
praise  that  is  involved  in  saying  that  he  did  not  go 
so  far  in  his  ill  use  of  Shakespeare  as  some  of  his 
predecessors   and  successors   in  this   same   field,   as, 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  73 

notably,  those  whom  he  cites  as  examples.  The  fea- 
tures that  merit  condemnation  and  arouse  indignation, 
on  the  contrary,  are  many,  but  only  a  few  of  them 
are  worth  notice  or  mention.  The  changes  are  in- 
variably for  the  worse  and  greatly  so.  In  place  of 
the  good  comedy  furnished  by  Launcelot  and  Old 
Gobbo,  we  are  given  the  tedious,  inane,  and  abso- 
lutely uninspired  masque.  In  the  reconstruction  of 
the  casket  scenes,  the  lessening  of  the  number  of 
which  may  be  justified  as  an  exigency  of  time,  our 
author  has  mutilated  some  of  the  best  lines  and  pas- 
sages, and  there  is  wretched  botching  exhibited  also 
in  the  Third  Act,  in  which  scenes  had  to  be  run  to- 
gether because  of  the  omission  of  characters. 

The  chief  feature  of  interest  in  this  version  is  the 
perverted  conception  of  the  character  of  Shylock.  It 
seems  strange  to  us  that  any  normal  person  could 
regard  the  Shylock  of  Shakespeare  as  any  but  a  highly 
tragic  part.  But  apparently  Lansdowne  did  so,  or, 
If  he  did  not,  he  thought  the  characterization  would 
be  improved  by  making  the  Jew  more  contemptible. 
At  any  rate,  it  must  be  conceded  that  he  Is  successful 
in  his  persistent  endeavor  to  lower  Shylock  and  has 
rendered  him  altogether  despicable.  We  become 
thoroughly  disgusted  with  a  Shylock  who  drinks  a 
toast  to  his  mistress,  money,  and  who  grins  like  an  ape 
In  the  trial  scene.  What  a  striking  contrast  to  a 
Shylock  exalted  by  his  wrath  and  desire  for  vengeance 
into  an  object  of  pity!  Yet  Lansdowne's  Jew  was 
for  forty  years  the  only  Shylock  with  which  theatre- 
goers were  familiar.  Now  and  then  a  person  might 
be  found,  like  Rowe,  who  ventured  the  opinion  that 
Shakespeare  Intended  a  different  Interpretation;  but 
it  was  not  until  Macklln  secured  for  himself  eternal 
honor  by  lifting  the  character  out  of  the  slough  into 


74       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

which  It  had  fallen  up  to  the  firm  ground  of  tragedy, 
or  gave  us,  as  Pope  is  said  to  have  put  it,  "the  Jew  that 
Shakespeare  drew,"  that  the  hght  dawned  and  Shake- 
speare's art  came  to  be  recognized.  Along  with  the 
depression  of  Shylock  appears  an  attempt  to  make 
Bassanio  more  prominent  and  estimable  which  has 
also,  as  carried  out,  resulted  in  debasing  the  character. 
Certainly  our  admiration  for  him  is  not  increased  by 
having  him  represented  as  getting  angry  with  the 
friend  who  has  done  so  much  for  him,  or  by  his 
greater  and  unbecoming  activity  in  the  trial  scene. 

Leaving  the  action  and  coming  to  the  diction,  we 
find  matter  for  as  great  if  not  greater  censure,  for 
Lansdowne,  besides  omitting  many  fine  lines  and  pas- 
sages of  the  original,  in  pursuing  his  purpose  of  "  re- 
fining," changes  the  phraseology  of  what  is  retained, 
invariably  for  the  worse,  and  adds  much  prosaic  verse 
of  his  own  composition.  Grateful  are  we  that  this 
perversion  is  consigned  to  a  well-merited  oblivion. 

As  You  Like  It 

This  charming  comedy  was  first  altered  by 
Charles  Johnson,  who,  for  the  sake  of  a  more*signifi- 
cant  title,  called  his  version  "  Love  in  a  Forest." 
Johnson,  who  was  a  tavern-keeper  as  well  as  a  writer 
of  plays,  and  who  as  a  poetaster  of  the  time  is  said 
to  be  mentioned  in  one  of  the  versions  of  the  "  Dun- 
ciad,"  dedicated  the  printed  copies  of  his  play  to  the 
Worshipful  Society  of  Freemasons,  of  which  he  was 
evidently  an  enthusiastic  member.  The  play,  when 
acted  in  1723,  met  with  no  success  and  was  withdrawn 
after  six  performances.  Strangely  enough,  its  origi- 
nal seems  to  have  been  entirely  unknown  to  the  stage 
of  the  period,  for  there  Is  no  record  of  its  representa- 
tion after  the  Restoration  until  1740,  when  It  was 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  75 

acted  about  twenty-five  times  at  Drury  Lane.  This 
fact  makes  all  the  more  laudable  Johnson's  desire,  as 
expressed  in  his  prologue,  of  restoring  to  the  stage 
one  more  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  and  had  he  been 
content  with  this  and  not  have  deemed  it  necessary  to 
revise  Shakespeare  for  the  purpose,  we  should  have 
been  much  indebted  to  him.  But  unfortunately  his 
judgment  was  at  fault  and  he  stultified  himself  by  his 
declaration  that  he  had  "  refined  his  [Shakespeare's] 
ore,"  "weeded  the  beautiful  parterre,"  and  "  restored 
the  scheme  from  time  and  error." 

Behold  the  result  of  the  refining,  weeding,  and 
restoring  processes !  Touchstone,  Audrey,  William, 
Corin,  and  Phoebe  are  removed  root  and  branch.  Sil- 
vius  appears  only  in  Act  II,  scene  4,  where  he  speaks 
about  twenty  lines  given  to  Corin  in  the  original. 
How  the  deficiency  thus  created  is  made  up  will  be 
seen  in  the  course  of  the  account  of  the  play,  which 
follows. 

The  first  two  acts  are  not  greatly  changed.  A 
ludicrous  modification  is  that  of  the  wrestling  bout 
to  a  combat  in  the  lists,  before  beginning  which 
Charles  and  Orlando  defy  each  other  with  the 
speeches  of  Bolingbroke  and  Norfolk  in  "  Richard 
the  Second,"  I,  i.  Jacques  himself  reports  his  moral- 
izing on  the  deer,  a  change  approved  by  Genest  but 
criticised  by  Furness  as  "  obliterating  one  of  Shake- 
speare's artistic  touches,  whereby  an  important  char- 
acter is  described  and  the  keynote  struck  before  he 
himself  appears." 

More  considerable  changes  appear  in  the  Third 
Act.  The  verses  which  Celia  ought  to  read  are 
omitted,  and  she  makes  the  comments  and  verses 
given  to  Touchstone  in  Shakespeare's  play.  After 
Orlando  and  Jacques  enter,  the  chief  change  in  the 


'je       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

play  Is  Instituted,  namely,  the  wooing  of  Celia  by 
Jacques.  This  Is  done  in  the  words  of  Touchstone  to 
Audrey,  patched  with  some  speeches  of  Benedick's 
from  "  Much  Ado,"  the  whole  dialogue  being  given 
an  eighteenth-century  tone.  This  "  monstrous  de- 
vice," curiously  enough,  anticipates  George  Sand's 
French  version  of  the  play,  Comme  II  Vous  Plaira, 
but  the  coincidence  is  undoubtedly  a  mere  accident, 
as  it  is  not  likely  she  had  read  Johnson's  play. 

The  Fourth  Act  opens  with  a  conversation  in 
which  Jacques  tells  Rosalind  of  his  love  for  Celia. 
Viola's  speech,  "  She  never  told  her  love,"  etc.,  is 
inserted  in  the  scene  between  Rosalind  and  Orlando. 
It  Is  Robert  Du  Bois  who  brings  Rosalind  Orlando's 
excuse  for  not  keeping  his  promise,  and  he  is  the 
brother  who  Is  rescued  from  the  lioness.  Oliver  Is 
reported  as  having  made  away  with  himself  to  escape 
punishment,  thus  making  Orlando  his  father's  heir. 
Of  course,  the  changes  already  made  affect  the  de- 
nouement somewhat,  but  the  play  ends  substantially 
as  In  Shakespeare,  except  that  Jacques  marries  Celia. 
To  compensate  for  the  omitted  portions,  the  bur- 
lesque play  of  "  Pyramus  and  Thisbe "  from  "A 
Midsummer  Night's  Dream  "  Is  dragged  in,  being 
represented  before  the  Duke  during  the  interval  be- 
tween the  exit  of  the  disguised  Rosalind  and  her 
return  In  her  true  character. 

Johnson's  chief  purposes  appear  to  have  been  to 
give  the  play  greater  unity  of  action  by  limiting  the 
action  to  fewer  characters  and  to  Improve  the  char- 
acterizations of  the  chief  persons.  In  carrying  out 
the  first  design,  he  has  deprived  us  of  some  of  the 
best  of  the  original;  how  lamentably  he  has  failed  In 
the  second  Is  almost  too  obvious  from  the  foregoing 
account  of  his  strange  changes  to  need  comment. 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  77 

What  shall  be  said  of  the  transformation  of  the 
melancholy  Jacques  Into  an  eighteenth-century  lover? 
It  is  certainly  most  remarkable.  One  of  Shake- 
speare's most  distinctive  characters,  a  universal  favor- 
ite nowadays,  is  to  our  minds  thereby  entirely  spoiled. 
Nothing  but  a  complete  failure  to  comprehend  the 
great  dramatist's  purpose  or  ignorance  of  true  dra- 
matic art  could  have  brought  about  such  a  perversion. 
The  comedy  is,  as  Furness  points  out,  so  thoroughly 
English  that  it  cannot  be  transplanted  to  German  or 
French  soil.  The  Germans  cannot  appreciate  the 
sparkling  wit  and  vivacity  of  Rosalind,  and  conse- 
quently turn  to  Jacques  and  Touchstone  as  the  lead- 
ing characters.  How  it  strikes  a  French  mind  may 
be  learned  from  an  examination  of  Sand's  Comme  II 
Foils  Plaira,  In  which  Jacques  is  made  the  hero,  being 
converted  from  a  misogynist  into  a  jealous  lover, 
almost  provoked  to  a  duel  with  Orlando  by  Celia's 
coquetry.  Johnson's  mind  seems  to  have  undergone  a 
sort  of  Frenchification,  If  one  may  so  speak,  the 
process  being  checked,  however,  before  It  was  com- 
pleted, so  that  he  did  not  carry  the  change  in  the 
characterization  of  Jacques  so  far  as  his  French  suc- 
cessor. At  any  rate,  both,  it  will  be  admitted,  have 
debased  the  character  most  effectually.  Perhaps  the 
best  criticism  on  the  transformed  Jacques  Is  that 
which  Johnson  makes  Cella  herself  utter:  "  Jacques's 
Icve  looks  a  little  awkward;  It  does  not  sit  so  easy 
on  him."  We  should,  however,  amend  it  by  making 
the  language  stronger.  The  omission  of  Touchstone 
and  Audrey  deprives  us  of  some  of  the  most  delight- 
ful comedy  to  be  found  anywhere,  ai^.d  that  of  Corin 
and  Phoebe  lowers  the  characterization  of  Rosalind 
somewhat  by  doing  away  with  her  desire  to  make  a 
lover  happy  by  using  her  good  offices  in  his  behalf. 


78       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

Another  useless  and  very  bad  change  is  the  re- 
moval of  Oliver  and  the  substitution  of  Robert  as 
the  brother  rescued  by  Orlando.  This  was  made 
necessary  by  the  change  in  the  lover  of  Celia.  Per- 
haps, also,  Johnson  had  in  mind  poetical  justice,  which 
would  be,  in  his  opinion,  better  satisfied  by  having 
Oliver  take  his  own  life.  But  how  much  it  injures 
the  conception  of  Orlando,  besides  removing  one  of 
the  chief  teachings  of  the  play,  the  lesson  of  forgive- 
ness, to  take  away  from  him  the  opportunity  to  show 
his  magnanimity  in  preserving  and  forgiving  an 
enemy!  We  must  admit  that  Oliver's  conversion  is 
a  little  sudden,  the  great  dramatist  being  undoubtedly 
influenced  not  a  little  by  the  dramatic  convention 
which  called  for  a  pairing  off  of  the  chief  characters 
in  the  fifth  act.  Nevertheless,  one  gets  a  fresh  ad- 
miration for  Shakespeare's  genius,  in  observing  his 
method  of  "making  earthly  things  even,"  as  com- 
pared with  that  of  his  uninspired  reviser. 

A  greater  Johnson  has  lamented  that  Shakespeare 
lost  the  opportunity  for  a  fine  piece  of  moralizing, 
in  not  recording  the  conversation  between  the  usurp- 
ing duke  and  the  hermit.  Fortunately,  this  i;^ea  did 
not  occur  to  his  lesser  namesake,  for  which  we  may  be 
grateful. 

The  dialogue,  when  Shakespeare  is  followed,  is 
not  greatly  altered,  but  of  course  Johnson's  changes 
and  omissions  make  necessary  much  of  his  own  com- 
position. As  a  concluding  word,  it  may  be  aflirmed 
that  this  version  is  an  extremely  bad  transformation 
of  Shakespeare's  most  charming  comedy.  As  we 
have  seen,  it  was  the  opinion  even  of  Johnson's  con- 
temporaries that  his  play  was  not  good. 

The  Old  Variorum  list  includes  another  altera- 
tion, "  The  Modern  Receipt,  or  a  Cure  for  Love. 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  79 

A  Comedy,  altered  from  Shakespeare,  i2mo,  1739." 
The  dedication  is  signed  "  J.  C."  I  was  unable  to 
get  any  information  about  it  further  than  this,  as  I 
did  not  find  a  copy,  and  there  is  no  mention  of  it  in 
Genest. 

The  Taming  of  the  Shrew 

Another  pleasing  comedy  that  has  suffered  vio- 
lence at  the  hands  of  revisers  and  adapters  is  "  The 
Taming  of  the  Shrew,"  as  besides  being  altered,  it 
has  been  resorted  to  for  material  for  farces  and  after- 
pieces. 

The  chief  alteration  is  so  unique  as  to  be  well 
worth  some  attention.  Here  again  there  is  a  change 
of  title,  but  In  this  case  it  is  a  much  more  violent  one. 
Indeed,  were  the  original  title  not  appended  as  a  sub- 
title to  the  altered  play,  the  disguise  would  be  com- 
plete. "  Sauny  the  Scot,  or  the  Taming  of  the  Shrew," 
is  one  of  the  earliest  versions  of  Shakespeare,  for  It 
was  first  acted  in  April,  1667,  although  not  printed 
until  1698.  It  is  attributed,  with  much  probability, 
to  the  actor  Lacy,  though  Langbaine  In  his  account  of 
dramatic  writers  does  not  speak  of  It  as  his.  Lacy 
himself  took  the  part  of  Sauny,  who  Is  Grumlo  turned 
Into  a  Scotchman.  The  play  met  with  considerable 
success,  although  Pepys,  who  records  seeing  It, 
thought  It  "generally  but  a  mean  play"  with  "some 
very  good  pieces  in  It." 

The  scene  of  the  play  is  transferred  to  London, 
the  dialogue  is  shortened  and  converted  into  prose, 
and  the  Fifth  Act  Is  almost  entirely  new.  Petruchio 
remains  as  In  the  original,  but  the  names  of  most 
of  the  other  dramatis  personae  are  changed.  Katha- 
rine becomes  Margaret,  daughter  of  Lord  Beaufoy 


8o       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

(Baptista).  In  Winlove,  son  of  Sir  Lionel  Winlove 
and  a  country  gentleman  of  Oxford  education,  may 
be  recognized  Lucentio,  now  become  an  English- 
man; Gremio,  Hortensio,  and  Biondello  become  re- 
spectively Woodall,  a  rich  old  citizen,  Geraldo,  and 
J  amy.  The  character  of  Sauny  is  much  more  impor- 
tant than  that  of  Grumio  in  Shakespeare's  play.  He 
is  Petruchio's  Scotch  servant  and  a  mere  buffoon. 
Curiously  enough,  his  language,  which  is  often  coarse, 
is  not  Scotch  in  its  idiom  or  apparent  pronunciation, 
but  Yorkshire  dialect.  Margaret  and  Petruchio  talk 
like  people  of  the  London  streets. 

The  Induction  is  omitted,  not  a  bad  change  as  its 
representation  is  unnecessary.  The  First  Act  is  very 
short,  consisting  of  Shakespeare's  first  scene  only. 
The  second  scene  of  Act  I,  and  the  whole  of  Act  II 
constitute  Lacy's  Second  Act.  Sauny  figures  very 
prominently  in  this  act.  Act  III  consists  of  Shake- 
speare's Third  Act  with  the  first  two  scenes  of  his 
Fourth  Act.  Winlove  (Lucentio)  speaks  a  kind  of 
French  English.  Petruchio  makes  Margaret  smoke. 
Snatchpenny,  a  London  thief,  has  the  part  of  the 
pedant.  The  remainder  of  Act  IV  and  the  fir^  scene 
of  Act  V  of  the  original  make  up  Lacy's  Fourth  Act. 
Woodall  is  represented  as  hiring  Winlove,  as  a 
Frenchman,  to  woo  Bianca  for  him.  Act  V,  as  has 
been  said,  is  almost  entirely  Lacy's,  although  the 
wager  on  the  wives'  obedience  is  introduced.  It  con- 
sists mainly  in  a  prolongation  of  Margaret's  resist- 
ance to  Petruchio.  He  declares  her  to  be  dead  and 
orders  his  servants  to  carry  her  out  and  bury  her. 
The  wager  episode  follows  and  then  the  play  ends 
with  a  dance. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  play  has  thus  been  trans- 
formed into  a  low  comedy  or  into  a  mere  farce.    The 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  8i 

change  of  scene  has  been  attended  with  a  marked  low- 
ering of  the  whole  tone  of  the  play  and  a  striking 
degradation  of  the  chief  characters.  For  this  the 
little  good  humor  that  has  been  added  is  far  from 
compensating,  much  less  does  it  excuse  it.  The  pro- 
longation of  Margaret's  stubbornness,  while  perhaps 
good  fooling,  certainly  cannot  be  called  an  improve- 
ment or  even  a  welcome  addition.  Shakespeare  knew 
when  to  stop. 

On  the  whole,  the  play,  although  bad  enough  as 
an  alteration  of  Shakespeare,  is  still  a  fairly  good 
play,  because  so  much  of  the  original  is  retained. 
There  was  no  call  to  change  the  setting  and  to  de- 
grade the  play.  This  and  the  destruction  of  the 
poetry  are  the  chief  features  to  be  condemned.  It  is 
only  one  more  proof  of  the  lack  of  anything  like  rev- 
erence for  Shakespeare  among  the  playwrights  and 
audiences  of  the  period,  that  such  a  version  could  be 
made  and,  moreover,  be  tolerated,  let  alone  be  re- 
ceived with  applause,  as  it  was. 

The  two  farces  (1716),  based  upon  the  Induc- 
tion and  called  "  The  Cobbler  of  Preston,"  one  by  the 
actor  Christopher  Bullock  and  the  other  by  Charles 
Johnson,  whose  acquaintance  we  have  made  before 
as  the  author  of  "  Love  in  a  Forest,"  do  not  deserve 
much  more  than  a  mention.  The  former  was  com- 
posed to  offset  the  production  of  the  latter  at  a  rival 
theatre  and  is  said  to  be  on  the  whole  the  better,  or 
probably  one  should  say  the  latter  is  the  worse  and 
not  infer  that  either  possessed  any  excellence.  Ac- 
cording to  Genest,  Johnson's  farce  is  merely  founded 
on  Shakespeare,  contains  political  allusions  directed 
against  the  Jacobites,  and  is  managed  badly  in  that 
the  trick  is  played  on  Sly  a  second  time.  Bullock's 
is  less  bad  in  that  he  uses  some  of  the  language  of  the 


82       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

original,  abstains  from  political  allusions,  and  man- 
ages the  deception  of  Sly  better.  The  only  thing 
that  impressed  me  in  reading  it  was  its  exceeding 
coarseness. 

I  shall  have  to  rely  again  upon  Genest,  to  whom 
so  m.any  times  I  am  indebted,  for  my  account  of  "A 
Cure  for  a  Scold,"  a  ballad  opera,  which  comes  next 
in  order  of  time.  It  is  by  Worsdale,  a  portrait 
painter,  and  was  given  in  1735  as  an  afterpiece  at  a 
performance  of  "  Richard  III."  The  author  pro- 
fesses to  have  founded  his  piece  on  Shakespeare's 
play,  but  in  reality  he  has  stolen  the  greater  part 
from  "  Sauny  the  Scot,"  either  verbatim  or  with 
slight  changes.  Manly,  Archer,  and  Peg  correspond 
respectively  to  Petruchio,  Grumio,  and  Katharine  of 
Shakespeare's  play. 

Garrick  cut  Shakespeare's  play  down  to  a  three- 
act  farce  in  1756,  by  omitting  the  characters  of  Vin- 
centlo,  Tranio,  and  Lucentio  and  much  of  the  dia- 
logue. He  called  the  adaptation  "  Katharine  and 
Petruchio."  It  opens  with  Petruchio's  telling  Baptista 
of  his  intention  to  woo  the  latter's  daughter,  and, 
with  some  unimportant  omissions  and  additions,  fol- 
lows Act  II  of  the  original.  The  Second  Act  begins 
with  III,  I,  and  ends  with  IV,  2.  The  dialogue  is 
made  up  of  passages  in  the  main  judiciously  selected. 
The  last  act  consists  of  the  remainder  of  the  play 
similarly  treated.  Some  of  the  good  speeches  or  lines 
of  the  discarded  characters  are  retained  and  trans- 
ferred. 

There  is  nothing  of  importance  to  our  subject  in 
this.  Garrick,  who  has  in  this  case  shown  greater 
wisdom  than  is  usual  in  his  adaptations  of  Shake- 
speare, has  certainly  produced  a  most  excellent  after- 
piece, but  no  great  credit  can  be  given  him  for  de- 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  83 

grading  a  good  comedy  Into  a  farce,  even  though  it 
is  an  excellent  one.  The  change  of  title  was  unneces- 
sary, and  Kemble,  in  revising  Garrick's  piece  later, 
restored  the  original  title. 


CHAPTER  V.    ALL'S  WELL  THAT  ENDS  WELL 

—  TWELFTH  NIGHT  — THE  WINTER'S 

TALE  — KING  JOHN  — RICHARD  II 

—  I  HENRY  IV  —  2  HENRY  IV 


T 


All's  Well  that  Ends  Well 

HIS  play  was  altered  by  a  Mr.  Pilon  and  re- 
duced to  three  acts  in  1785.  His  version 
was  never  printed  and  I  could  learn 
nothing  as  to  its  nature. 

Twelfth  Night,  or,  What  You  Will 

"  Love  Betrayed,  or  the  Agreeable  Disappoint- 
ment," 1703,  by  Charles  Burnaby,  is  a  comedy  based 
upon  "Twelfth  Night."  According  to  Genest, 
about  fifty  lines  are  professedly  taken  from  Shake- 
speare's play,  and  the  plot  and  incidents  Come  from 
the  same  source.  The  dialogue  is  written  .afresh, 
but,  says  Genest,  "  This  comedy  is  rather  to  Ibe  con- 
sidered as  a  very  bad  alteration  of  Shakespeare's  play 
than  as  a  new  one."  I  did  not  find  a  copy  of  Bur- 
naby's  production,  so,  of  course,  I  cannot  testify  as 
to  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  stage  historian's  remark. 

The  Winter's  Tale 

Several  alterations  or  adaptations  of  this  play  or 
of  a  part  of  it  have  been  made.  The  first  is  a  recon- 
struction of  the  last  two  acts  of  Shakespeare's  play 
into  a  dramatic  pastoral  centering  about  the  sheep- 
shearing  scene.  It  is  attributed  to  M'Namara  Mor- 
gan, author  of  an  uninspired  tragedy  called  "  Philo- 

84 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  85 

clea,"  founded  on  Sidney's  "Arcadia,"  and  was  pro- 
duced at  Covent  Garden,  March  25,  1754,  as  an 
afterpiece.  It  is  In  two  acts  and  opens  with  a  scene 
In  verse  founded  on  IV,  i,  in  which  Polixenes  tells 
Camillo  of  his  son's  attachment  to  a  shepherdess  and 
adds  that  he  does  not  object  to  his  having  an  Intrigue 
with  her,  but  only  to  his  marrying  her.  Next  fol- 
lows IV,  3,  and  then  comes  a  scene,  mostly  new.  In 
which  the  king  and  Camillo,  on  their  way  to  the 
sheepshearing,  inquire  the  way  of  Autolycus.  Act  II 
is  the  sheepshearing  scene  somewhat  altered.  Per- 
dlta  sings  a  song.  After  Polixenes  has  discovered 
himself  and  expressed  his  determination  to  break  off 
the  match,  the  old  shepherd,  who  very  conveniently 
turns  out  to  be  Antigonus,  Informs  the  king  that  the 
maiden  Is  daughter  to  Leontes.  Of  course  Polixenes 
Is  then  reconciled  to  his  son,  and  the  piece  thereupon 
ends  with  a  song  by  Autolycus. 

This  production  Is  objectionable  in  a  number  of 
respects.  First  and  foremost.  In  principle,  as  an  un- 
dignified use  of  Shakespeare's  play  and  material,  sec- 
ondly in  that  the  author  associated  too  much  of  his 
own  invention  with  the  dialogue  he  takes  from  the 
original,  especially  In  the  part  of  Autolycus,  and 
thirdly  In  the  debasement  of  the  character  of  Po- 
lixenes Indicated  by  his  remark  to  Camillo. 

About  two  years  later,  to  be  precise,  on  January 
21,  1756,  Garrlck's  alteration  was  acted  at  Drury 
Lane,  together  with  his  alteration  of  "  The  Taming 
of  the  Shrew,"  "  Katharine  and  Petruchlo."  This 
time  the  piece  was  an  expansion  of  Shakespeare's  last 
two  acts  into  three  acts  by  adding  some  new  portions 
and  taking  over  matter  from  the  first  three  acts  of 
the  original.  Act  I,  i.  Is  partly  IV,  i,  with  additions 
summarizing  the  events  of  the  previous  acts  of  Shake- 


S6      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

speare's  play.  Leontes  is  said  to  be  coming  to 
"  Bithynia  "  again.  Scene  2  is  at  first  from  III,  3, 
from  "  Enter  an  old  shepherd,"  but  Leontes  and 
Cleomenes  are  rescued  from  shipwreck  instead  of 
the  child.    Scene  3  is  IV,  2. 

Act  II,  I,  is  like  IV,  3,  down  to  "Enter  a  ser- 
vant," save  that  Perdita's  song  from  Morgan's  play 
is  introduced.  Leontes  and  Cleomenes  are  present  as 
spectators.  After  Polixenes  and  Camillo,  the  latter 
of  whom  has,  of  course,  never  changed  his  allegiance, 
go  out,  Leontes  offers  his  assistance  to  Florizel  to- 
ward reconciling  the  prince  to  his  father,  which  favor 
Florizel  accepts.  Genest  says  in  criticism  of  this 
feature,  "  If  Garrick  was  determined  to  make  use  of 
this  expedient  for  detaining  Florizel  at  home,  he 
ought  to  have  made  Leontes  declare  who  he  really 
was,  as  it  is  very  unnatural  for  Florizel  to  place  any 
reliance  on  the  mediation  of  a  stranger,  notwithstand- 
ing the  mysterious  hints  of  his  being  of  more  conse- 
quence than  he  seemed  to  be." 

Act  III,  I,  begins  with  the  soliloquy  of  Autoly- 
cus  and  follows  Shakespeare  closely.  Scene  2  is  new. 
A  gentleman  tells  Paulina  of  the  arrival  of  Leqjites, 
his  reconciliation  to  Polixenes,  and  his  intercession 
for  Florizel.  To  them  enters  Camillo,  who  tells  of 
the  reconciliation  and  of  the  joy  which  has  come  in 
the  discovery  that  Perdita  is  the  long-lost  daughter  of 
Leontes.  Paulina  speaks  of  the  statue  of  Hermione 
that  she  wishes  the  king  to  see.  Scene  3  is  V,  2,  from 
"  Exeunt  gentlemen."  Scene  4  is  the  scene  at  Pau- 
lina's house,  part  of  V,  i,  being  combined  with  V,  3, 
with  some  changes. 

Although  Garrick's  additions  are  far  from  the 
standard  of  the  original  and  his  changes  and  his  bor- 
rowings from  the  omitted  acts  are  often  injudicious 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  87 

and  result  in  mutilating  Shakespeare's  play,  and  al- 
though, further,  this  is  irreverent  treatment  on  his 
part  of  the  great  master  whom  he  professed  to  ad- 
mire so  much,  his  play  proved  acceptable  and  was 
revived  from  time  to  time  during  that  century.  Its 
influence  even  passed  into  the  next  century,  for  Kem- 
ble  in  reviving  "The  Winter's  Tale"  in  1802  at 
Drury  Lane,  adopted  Garrick's  additions  or  modifi- 
cations in  a  few  instances. 

This  pleasing  romantic  comedy  was  in  1756 
printed  as  altered  by  Charles  Marsh,  a  bookseller 
and  a  friend  of  Garrick's,  who  revised  three  or  four 
of  Shakespeare's  plays,  but  who  never  succeeded  in 
getting  his  productions  of  this  kind  acted  and  did 
not  venture  to  print  all  of  them.  This  alteration  was 
published  at  the  time  that  Garrick's  adaptation  was 
being  acted  at  Drury  Lane.  Marsh  appears  to  have 
borne  no  little  resentment  against  the  manager  for 
his  preferring  his  own  piece  to  his  friend's.  The 
title  page  has  the  following  address  to  Garrick: 

"  Think'st  thou  the  Swan  of  Avon  spreads  her  wings, 
Her  brooding  wings  for  thee  alone  to  plume 
And  nestle  there,  O  Garrick?  —  Thou  deserv'st 
Indeed,  much  cherishing;  thy  melody 
Charms  ev'ry  ear.     But  sure,  it  ill  beseems 
One  cygnet,  thus  to  stretch  its  little  pinions, 
Ambitiously  intent,  to  fill  that  nest 
Whose  roomy  limits  well  may  shelter  numbers." 

The  sixteen  elapsed  years  was  the  special  rock 
which  our  dramatic  mariner  wished  to  avoid.  Such 
a  grave  breach  of  the  sacred  unity  of  time  was  not 
to  be  tolerated.  Garrick  and  Morgan  had  subjected 
the  play  to  an  heroic  treatment  to  overcome  the  diffi- 
culty and  had  rejected  the  first  three  acts  in  toto, 


88       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

remodeling  what  was  left  according  to  their  pleasure. 
Marsh,  however,  preferred,  beside  following  their 
example  with  respect  to  the  last  two  acts,  to  rewrite 
largely  the  foregoing  portion,  in  such  a  way  as  to  do 
away  with  the  long  wait.  He  also  obviated  the  dis- 
tressing geographical  error  involved  in  the  "  coast  of 
Bohemia,"  by  adopting  Hanmer's  change  of  Bo- 
hemia to  Bithynia. 

Marsh's  play  begins  then  at  the  time  when  Shake- 
speare's Fourth  Act  begins.  His  first  scene  is  a  new 
one  (there  are  occasional  lines  from  Shakespeare), 
in  which  Alcidales  and  Rogero,  two  Sicilian  lords, 
converse  about  the  unfortunate  Leontes's  long  jeal- 
ousy and  the  sixteen  years  imprisonment  his  queen 
has  undergone.  In  scene  2,  the  king  has  joined  them. 
The  first  part  of  the  scene  is  like  II,  3,  down  to 
"Enter  Paulina  with  a  child;"  then  follows  part  of 
I,  2,  the  speeches  of  Camillo,who,  of  course,  had  long 
been  in  banishment,  being  transferred  to  the  two 
lords.  There  is  much  additional.  The  two  lords 
give  it  as  their  opinion  that  the  supposed  guilty  per- 
sons are  innocent,  and  the  king  tells  of  sending^to  the 
oracle.  Then  Paulina  enters,  though,  of  course^  with- 
out the  child,  and  the  remainder  is  partly  like  II,  3. 
Antigonus  is,  however,  absent,  as  he  has  long  been 
gone.  Paulina  tells  the  king  that  Antigonus  has  ap- 
peared to  her  in  a  dream  and  has  told  her  that  he  left 
Leontes's  babe  on  Bithynia's  shore  and  that  she  comes 
at  Hermione's  desire  to  ask  that  the  question  of  the 
latter's  innocence  or  guilt  may  be  determined  by  an 
impartial  test  of  justice.  If  not  proved  innocent,  the 
queen  desires  to  be  condemned  to  death,  a  fate  which 
she  prefers  to  imprisonment.  The  king  replies, 
"Apollo,  judge  between  us,"  and  then  comes  in  a 
messenger  announcing  the  return  of  those  who  have 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  89 

been  sent  to  consult  the  oracle.  The  king  orders  a 
court  to  be  held. 

Act  II,  scene  i,  is  like  III,  i.  Scene  2  is  a  new 
one  and  is  laid  in  the  prison,  a  little  of  it  being  taken 
from  II,  2.  Paulina  is  with  Hermione.  The  queen 
is  rejoicing  in  the  opportunity  to  have  her  innocence 
established  and  thanks  the  faithful  Paulina  for  her 
efforts  in  her  friend's  behalf.  Scene  3  is  III,  2. 
Shakespeare's  third  scene  is  necessarily  omitted. 

The  rest  of  the  play  follows  the  original  pretty 
closely.  Marsh's  Third  Act  is  made  up  of  IV,  i, 
IV,  2,  and  part  of  IV,  3.  Act  IV  is  the  remainder  of 
IV,  3,  with  some  additions.  Act  V  is  like  Shake- 
speare's. 

This  and  the  other  treatments  of  this  play  were, 
as  is  sufficiently  obvious,  undertaken  in  the  interest 
of  the  unity  of  time.  Even  the  most  liberal  of  the 
pseudo-classicists  could  not,  as  has  been  said,  con- 
done so  flagrant  a  violation  of  this  principle  as  Shake- 
speare has  committed  in  this  play.  But  the  romantic 
drama,  in  which  perfect  freedom  was  allowed. and 
in  which  this  "  rule  of  art "  was  not  consciously  ob- 
served, exhibits  not  uncommonly  lapses  of  time  even 
far  greater.  In  Lyly's  "  Endymion,"  for  instance, 
forty  years  are  supposed  to  intervene  between  the 
time  when  Endymion  falls  asleep  and  the  return  of 
Eumenides  with  his  news.  We  who  are  not  enslaved 
by  the  rules  of  pseudo-classicism  and  who  accept  the 
spirit  and  method  of  the  romantic  drama  regard  the 
lapse  of  time  between  acts  as  a  perfectly  legitimate 
dramatic  convention  and  the  representation  of  two, 
perhaps  widely  sundered,  periods  in  the  life  of  per- 
sons as  natural  and  proper  in  a  drama.  Moreover 
in  this  case  it  v/as  necessary  to  the  dramatic  purpose, 
which  was  to  exhibit  that  "triumph  of  time"    (as 


90       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

Greene's  subtitle  to  his  story  which  was  the  source  of 
Shakespeare's  play  has  it),  by  which  all  is  turned  to 
good  however  man  may  err. 

Believing  as  we  do  that  Shakespeare's  handling 
of  the  subject  is  natural  and  artistic,  we  must  utterly 
condemn  those  efforts  to  remove  the  infraction  of  the 
unity  of  time  which  resulted  in  the  cases  of  Morgan's, 
Garrick's,  and  Colman's  pieces  in  the  omission  of 
many  fine  scenes  and  passages  of  the  play,  and  in  the 
case  of  the  play  just  described  in  the  mingling  of  so 
much  of  the  reviser's  poetry  with  Shakespeare's. 
The  result  is  the  same  in  every  case;  the  play  is 
spoiled  to  a  great  extent. 

It  made  not  the  slightest  difference  to  Shakespeare 
whether  Bohemia  had  a  sea  coast  or  not  or  that  Del- 
phos  was  not  on  an  island.  Even  if  he  knew  Greene 
to  be  wrong  on  these  points,  he  probably  thought  it 
not  worth  while  to  correct  them.  We  agree  with 
him  and  have  no  patience  with  the  attempts  to  remedy 
the  difficulties,  either  by  substituting  some  other  coun- 
try or  as,  in  the  case  of  Bohemia,  by  finding  justifica- 
tion for  his  making  that  country  a  maritime  one.  It 
is  far  too  trivial  to  raise  such  a  pother  about.        ^ 

There  remains  to  be  noticed  another  dramatic 
pastoral  called  "  Sheepshearing,"  which  was  given  at 
the  Haymarket  in  1777,  being  acted,  however,  only 
once.  The  compiler,  who  is  supposed  to  be  Colman, 
professed  to  take  the  piece  from  Shakespeare,  but  in 
fact  it  is  an  abridgment  of  Garrick's  version.  The 
visit  of  Leontes  to  Bohemia  is  retained,  together  with 
some  other  of  Garrick's  uninspired  additions.  Flori- 
zel  sings  two  songs  and  the  play  ends  with  a  song 
borrowed  from  Morgan's  play. 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  91 

The  Life  and  Death  of  King  John 

Colley  Gibber,  dramatist,  theatre  manager,  actor, 
poet  laureate,  and  hero  of  the  Dunciad,  besides  being 
the  author  of  one  of  the  most  famous  of  the  altera- 
tions of  Shakespeare  —  I  refer  to  his  "  Richard  III" 
—  is  also  responsible  for  another  revision,  which,  un- 
like the  earlier  work,  had  a  very  short  run  and  is  now 
known  only  to  dramatic  history. 

"Papal  Tyranny  in  the  Reign  of  King  John" 
was  the  title  he  gave  to  his  production  —  the  reason 
for  the  amended  title  will  soon  appear  —  and  the  play 
was  first  given  at  Covent  Garden,  February  15,  1745. 
It  had  been  offered  for  representation  and  put  into 
rehearsal  nine  years  before,  but  Gibber,  angry  because 
he  was  criticised  for  again  presuming  to  meddle  with 
Shakespeare,  went  to  the  playhouse  secretly  and  car- 
ried away  the  play.  It  is  to  this  occurrence  that  Pope 
alludes  in  the  "  Dunciad  "  in  the  line  "  King  John  in 
silence  modestly  expires."  When,  however,  the  nation 
was  threatened  by  a  Popish  pretender,  Gibber's  patri- 
otism got  the  better  of  all  personal  considerations, 
and  the  drama  was  produced,  the  author  himself  re- 
turning to  the  stage  to  act  the  part  of  Pandulph. 
This  play  was  opposed  by  the  revival  of  the  original 
at  Drury  Lane  and  was  soon  withdrawn. 

Gibber's  attitude  will  best  be  made  evident  by 
quoting  from  the  dedication  to  the  Earl  of  Ghester- 
field,  prefixed  to  the  printed  copies:  "  In  all  the  his- 
torical plays  of  Shakespeare,"  he  declares,  "  is  scarce 
any  fact  that  might  better  have  employed  his  genius 
than  the  flaming  contest  between  his  insolent  Holiness 
and  King  John.  This  is  so  remarkable  a  passage  in 
our  histories  that  it  seems  surprising  our  Shakespeare 
should  have  taken  no  more  fire  at  it.     .     .     .     It 


92       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

was  this  coldness  then,  my  lord,  that  first  incited  me 
to  inspirit  his  King  John  with  a  resentment  that  justly 
might  become  an  English  monarch,  and  to  paint  the 
intoxicated  tyranny  of  Rome  in  its  proper  colors. 
And  so  far,  at  least,  my  labor  has  succeeded,  that  the 
additional  sentiments  which  King  John  throws  out 
upon  so  flagrant  a  provocation  were  received  with 
those  honest,  cordial  applauses  which  English  auditors 
I  foresaw  would  be  naturally  warmed  to.  My  success 
in  this  point,  which  I  had  chiefly  at  heart,  makes  me 
almost  unconcerned  for  what  may  be  judged  of  the 
further  mechanism  of  the  play;  I  have  endeavored  to 
make  it  more  like  a  play  than  what  I  found  it  in 
Shakespeare." 

Gibber  apparently  did  not  know  that  he  was  re- 
turning to  the  harsh,  anti-Romish  spirit  that  charac- 
terized the  old  play  that  Shakespeare  recast,  and 
which,  in  recasting,  he  rejected. 

The  play  opens  with  the  scene  before  Anglers, 
the  entire  First  Act  of  the  original  being  omitted. 
There  are  two  slight  changes  in  the  new  First  Act. 
It  Is  Constance,  instead  of  Faulconbridge,  who  Sug- 
gests the  combination  of  forces  against  the  city,  and 
the  Abbot  of  Anglers,  instead  of  the  "  First  Citizen," 
who  suggests  the  marriage  to  make  peace  between 
the  kings. 

In  the  Second  Act,  the  dispute  between  King  John 
and  Pandulph  is  considerably  enlarged,  and  it  is  here 
that  Cibber  takes  the  opportunity  to  express  his  senti- 
ments regarding  the  Roman  hierarchy.  Another  new 
feature  is  a  short  conversation  between  the  Dauphin 
and  Blanche  about  the  unhappy  breaking  off  of  the 
negotiations. 

There  are  many  minor  changes  in  the  Third  Act. 
The  most  noteworthy  departures  from  Shakespeare 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  93 

are  in  the  scene  between  Hubert  and  Arthur, 
Nothing  is  said  about  proposing  to  put  Arthur's  eyes 
out,  but  he  is  to  be  killed  with  a  dagger,  after  writing 
a  statement  that  he  has  killed  himself.  After  the 
keeper  has  spared  the  boy's  life,  he  permits  Constance, 
who  has  been  captured,  to  have  an  interview,  not 
represented  in  the  play,  with  her  son. 

Act  IV  is  much  changed.  It  begins  in  the  French 
camp  near  Bury.  Pandulph  describes  the  effect  of  his 
anathema,  and  a  letter  of  submission  is  brought  by 
Faulconbridge  from  King  John.  There  are  unim- 
portant changes  not  a  few. 

In  the  last  act,  Salisbury  stabs  Hubert,  who  is 
present  when  Arthur's  body  is  found.  Many  slight 
alterations  are  made  and  there  is  one  considerable 
addition,  that  of  the  funeral  of  the  prince  at  Swin- 
stead  Abbey,  at  which  ceremony  his  mother  is,  rather 
im.probably,  represented  as  being  present.  The  play 
ends  with  the  death  of  the  King  and  the  leading  off 
of  Constance. 

So  badly  is  the  play  mangled  that  it  may  be  said 
to  be  practically  written  afresh.  Among  the  numer- 
ous changes,  two  stand  out,  the  virtual  disappearance 
of  Faulconbridge  and  the  enlargement  of  the  char- 
acter of  Constance.  By  the  former,  one  of  Shake- 
speare's most  individual  and  skilfully  portrayed  char- 
acters, whose  words  and  actions  constitute  one  of  the 
best  features  of  the  play,  is  lost  to  us.  To  compensate 
for  this  deprivation,  the  latter  change  is  made, 
which  the  author  doubtless  thought  would  be  very 
acceptable  to  his  audience.  Probably  this  is  one  of 
the  principal  things  that  to  Cibber's  mind  made  the 
history  "  more  like  a  play."  That  the  woman  element 
must  be  made  an  important  one  was,  as  we  have  seen, 
an  article  of  the  dramatic  faith  of  the  time. 


94       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

It  may  be  noted,  in  passing,  that  our  author,  In 
making  Constance  more  prominent,  has  represented 
her  as  doing  several  things  for  which  history  affords 
no  warrant,  a  practice  which  he  adopts  In  many  other 
cases.  Anyone  who  reads  this  play  will  not  long  be 
uncertain  as  to  the  comparative  excellence  of  Shake- 
speare and  Clbber  as  playwrights  and  poets.  Perhaps 
In  no  other  scene  will  Gibber's  lack  of  true  dramatic 
art  be  more  obvious  than  In  that  between  King  John 
and  Hubert,  which  In  Shakespeare  Is  well-nigh  per- 
fect but  which  Clbber  has  completely  spoiled.  But 
nothing  will  be  gained  by  a  further  discussion  of  this 
mangling  process.  It  Is  much  worse  than  In  the  ver- 
sion of  "  Richard  III,"  and  It  is  no  wonder  that  the 
play  quickly  succumbed  when  brought  Into  compari- 
son with  the  production  of  the  original  at  a  rival 
theatre. 

It  is  Interesting  and  amusing  to  learn  that  the 
proprietor  of  Drury  Lane  Theatre  advertised  that  he 
had  put  off  the  requested  revival  of  Shakespeare's 
"  King  John,"  because  Clbber  had  Insinuated  that  this 
was  likely  to  damage  him,  but  that,  "  finding  from  the 
bills  that  '  Papal  Tyranny '  was  not  an  alteration  of 
'  King  John  '  but  a  new  tragedy  on  the  same  plan," 
he  would  not  delay  the  exhibition. 

Cibber's  treatment  of  the  dialogue  will  best  ap- 
pear from  a  brief  quotation.  Of  course,  he  added  a 
great  deal  of  his  own.  Ten  lines  from  the  familiar 
passage  at  the  opening  of  Shakespeare's  Act  III  are 
reduced  to  six  and  robbed  of  most  of  their  vigor: 

"A  peace  with  England,  and  by  France  concluded ! 
Affianced  too!     Blanch  to  the  Dauphin  married! 
And  Arthur's  ruin  made  her  pompous  dowry, 
Thou  dost  abuse  my  ear,  it  cannot  be ! 
I  have  a  monarch's  oath  to  right  my  cause, 
And  'twere  to  wrong  thy  master,  to  believe  thee!  " 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  95 

Although  Gibber's  "  King  John  "  was  short-lived 
as  an  acted  play,  its  influence  did  not  die,  for  as  late 
as  May  20,  1803,  an  alteration  made  by  Doctor 
Valpy,  originally  for  representation  at  Reading 
School,  was  given  at  Covent  Garden.  In  this  the 
compiler  borrowed  to  some  extent  from  Gibber  and, 
like  him,  omitted  the  First  Act  and  debased  the  char- 
acter of  Faulconbridge.  Valpy  also  added  much  of 
his  own  and  made  many  unnecessary  changes  in  the 
diction,  but  he  wisely  did  not  venture  to  tamper  with 
the  great  scenes. 

That  there  were  some  people  with  taste  enough 
to  see  the  folly  of  the  practice  of  attempting  to  im- 
prove Shakespeare,  the  following  humorous  dialogue 
will  show.  It  was  written  by  Fielding  in  his  "  His- 
torical Register"  for  1736,  and  was  probably  the 
chief  cause  of  the  anger  which,  as  we  have  seen,  made 
Gibber  take  away  the  play. 

Enter  Ground  Ivy  (Golley  Gibber). 

''  Ground  Ivy.     What  are  you  doing  here? 

Apollo.  I  am  casting  the  parts  in  the  Tragedy 
of  King  John. 

Ground  Ivy.  Then  you  are  casting  the  parts  in 
a  tragedy  that  will  not  do. 

Apollo.  How,  sir !  Was  it  not  written  by  Shake- 
speare? And  was  not  Shakespeare  one  of  the  great- 
est geniuses  that  ever  lived? 

Ground  Ivy.  No,  sir.  Shakespeare  was  a  pretty 
fellow  and  said  some  things  which  only  want  a  little 
of  my  licking  to  do  well  enough ;  King  John  as  now 
writ  will  not  do.  But  a  word  in  your  ear,  I  will  make 
him  do. 

Apollo.     How? 

Ground  Ivy.  By  alteration,  sir;  it  was  a  maxim 
of  mine,  when  I  was  at  the  head  of  theatrical  affairs, 


96       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

that  no  play,  tho'  ever  so  good,  would  do  without 
alteration." 

Sourwit,  a  critic,  ridicules  the  idea  of  Ground 
Ivy's  altering  of  Shakespeare;  to  which  Medley 
(Fielding  himself)  admirably  replies:  "As  Shake- 
speare is  already  good  enough  for  people  of  taste, 
he  must  be  altered  to  the  palates  of  those  who  have 
none;  and  if  you  will  grant  that,  who  can  be  properer 
to  alter  him  for  the  worse?" 

"Sourwit.  I  hope,  sir,  your  Pistol  is  not  In- 
tended to  burlesque  Shakespeare. 

Medley.  No,  sir.  I  have  too  great  an  honor 
for  Shakespeare  to  think  of  burlesquing  him;  and,  to 
be  sure  of  not  burlesquing  him,  I  will  never  attempt 
to  alter  him,  for  fear  of  burlesquing  him  by  accident, 
as,  perhaps,  some  others  have  done." 

We  can  only  wish  that  the  sentiments  of  Medley 
had  been  generally  held  at  this  period  and  before  and 
after  It. 

The  Tragedy  of  King  Richard  II 

None  of  the  history  plays  and  few  of  the  ^ther 
plays  have,  if  we  may  base  an  opinion  on  numerical 
grounds,  received  so  much  attention  from  revisers 
as  this.  I  have,  however,  not  seen  a  copy  of  any  of 
the  four  or  five  "  Richard  IPs  "  described  or  men- 
tioned In  the  various  stage  histories,  so  I  shall  have  to 
depend  for  my  descriptions  on  the  invaluable  Genest. 

The  first  in  point  of  time  Is  Tate's  alteration, 
which  was  acted  under  the  name  of  "  The  Sicilian 
Usurper"  at  the  Theatre  Royal  in  1681.  It  seems 
that  the  play  was  suppressed,  first  under  Its  proper 
name,  and  then  as  disguised  with  the  above  title,  the 
authorities  condemning  It  without  examination.  It 
was  not,  however,  regard  or  reverence  for  Shake- 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  97 

speare  that  brought  this  about,  but  political  reasons. 
Tate  complains  bitterly  of  this  treatment  in  his  dedi- 
cation, as  he  thought  "  it  would  have  found  protec- 
tion from  whence  it  received  prohibition."  "  For  the 
two  days  in  which  it  was  acted,"  he  says,  "  the  change 
of  scene,  names  of  persons,  etc.,  was  a  great  disad- 
vantage. I  have  called  my  persons  Sicilians,  but 
might  as  well  have  made  them  inhabitants  of  the 
World  in  the  Moon."  Tate  boasts  that  he  has  height- 
ened the  character  of  Richard  and  tried  to  palliate 
his  miscarriages  and  adds,  "  the  arbitrary  courtiers 
of  the  reign  here  written  scarcely  did  more  violence 
to  the  subjects  of  those  times  than  I  have  done  to 
truth,  in  disguising  their  foul  practices;  every  scene 
is  full  of  respect  to  majesty,  and  the  dignity  of  courts; 
not  one  altered  page  but  what  breathes  loyalty."  But 
we  cannot  pity  Tate,  for  he  has  meanly  disfigured 
Shakespeare's  play  for  the  sake  of  conciliating  the 
persons  in  power. 

Tate's  additions  are,  as  might  be  expected,  abso- 
lutely uninspired  and  dull.  The  only  commendable 
feature  is  that  so  much  of  the  original  has  been  re- 
tained. The  most  prominent  change  is  in  the  char- 
acterization of  York,  who  is  debased  to  a  comic 
character  intended  by  Tate  as  a  model  of  loyalty.  He 
is  faithful  to  Richard  until  that  king  is  deposed,  when 
he  promptly  transfers  his  allegiance  to  Bolingbroke, 
the  new  king. 

We  may  conclude  by  saying  that  this  is  only 
another  instance  of  the  almost  utter  lack  of  reverence 
for  Shakespeare,  which  characterized  the  time  and 
justified  the  use  of  a  play  of  his  as  a  vehicle  for  politi- 
cal opinion. 

Yet  greater  violence  was  done  to  Shakespeare  by 
Lewis  Theobald,  the  Shakespeare  editor,  whose  ver- 


98       ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

sion  of  "  Richard  II  "  was  acted  in  1 7 1 9  at  the  theatre 
In  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields.  He  was  not  at  all  indebted 
to  Tate.  In  his  preface  he  says :  "  I  have  made  some 
innovations  upon  histoi-y  and  Shakespeare;  as  in 
bringing  Richard  and  Bolingbroke  to  meet  first  at 
the  Tower,  keeping  York  steady  to  the  interest  of  the 
King,  heightening  Aumerle's  character  in  making  him 
die  for  the  cause,  and  in  despatching  Richard  at  the 
Tower,  who,  indeed,  was  murthered  at  Pontefract 
Castle.  In  these  and  such  instances  I  think  there  may 
be  reserved  a  discretionary  power  of  variation,  either 
for  maintaining  the  unity  of  action,  or  supporting  the 
dignity  of  the  characters." 

Theobald's  attempt  to  make  the  play  conform 
more  nearly  to  the  unities  led  him  to  omit,  with  the 
exception  of  some  speeches  which  he  has  transposed, 
the  First  and  Second  Acts  of  the  original,  and  to  lay 
the  scene  the  entire  time  at  or  before  the  Tower.  To 
compensate  for  this  omission  he  makes  great  addi- 
tions of  his  own  invention,  the  chief  of  whichis  a  love 
intrigue  between  Aumerle  artd  a  new  female' charac- 
ter. Lady  Percy,  daughter  of  Northumberland.  ^The 
lovers  have  two  Interviews,  in  the  latter  of  miich 
Aumerle,  in  taking  out  his  handkerchief,  drops  a 
parchment  which,  after  their  departure,  Northumber- 
land reads,  thereby  discovering  the  conspiracy.  Au- 
merle is  executed  in  spite  of  York's  pleading  for  him 
and  Lady  Percy's  entreating  her  father  to  interfere 
In  his  behalf.  Lady  Percy  then  kills  herself,  and 
York,  finding  the  king  dead,  also  takes  his  own  life. 
Bolingbroke  concludes  the  play  with  a  sentiment 
which  would  have  come  more  properly  from  some 
other  lips: 

"  Tho'  vengeance  may  a  while  withhold  her  hand, 
A  king's  blood,  unatoned,  must  curse  the  land." 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  99 

It  will  be  readily  seen  that  this  attempt  to  make 
over  the  history  according  to  the  dramatic  Ideas  of 
the  time,  to  make  It  more  like  a  play,  as  the  customary 
phrase  was,  has  resulted  as  usual  In  a  bad  mutilation 
ot  Shakespeare's  play  and  in  the  production  of  a 
hodgepodge  that  is  far,  not  only  from  being  an  Im- 
provement, but  from  being  an  equal,  of  the  origi- 
nal. Moreover,  the  Idea  that  the  passion  of  love 
must  figure  prominently,  which  is  responsible  for  the 
chief  addition,  has  complicated  the  plot  and  thus  in  a 
measure  worked  against  the  unity  of  the  play.  Theo- 
bald by  thus  treating  Shakespeare  has  done  much 
to  counterbalance  the  merits  of  his  edition  of  the  plays, 
and  has  made  us  not  disposed  to  commiserate  him  for 
his  castlgatlon  by  the  pen  of  Pope. 

A  third  version  of  this  play  was  made  by  one 
James  Goodhall  in  1772  and  Is  said  to  be  a  very  bad 
one.  The  "  Biographia  Dramatica  "  says  that  It  was 
offered  to  Garrick,  but  did  not  meet  with  acceptance, 
and  that  it  was  printed  at  Manchester. 

The  "  Biographia  Dramatica  "  mentions  another 
"Richard  II"  as  acted  at  Bath  in  1754  but  never 
published.  It  was  by  Francis  Gentleman,  who  was 
the  author  of  "The  Dramatic  Censor,"  and  who,  ac- 
cording to  the  same  authority,  has  the  discredit  of 
being  the  editor  of  the  worst  edition  that  has  ever 
appeared  of  any  English  author,  viz.,  Bell's  Shake- 
speare (1774-75)-  Whether  this  was  an  alteration 
of  Shakespeare's  play  or  a  new  play  on  the  same 
foundation  Is  not  stated. 

The  adaptation  of  "  Richard  II "  first  acted  at 
Drury  Lane,  March  9,  18 15,  was  In  the  main  prop- 
erly made.  In  one  respect,  however,  the  adapter, 
who  was  the  actor  Richard  Wroughton,  erred,  and 
that  was,  in  omitting  too  much  of  the  original.     For 


100     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

the  rejected  portions  he  substituted  passages  from 
other  plays,  such  as  "  2  Henry  VI,"  "  3  Henry  VI," 
"  Anthony  and  Cleopatra,"  and  "  King  Lear." 

The  First  Part  of  King  Henry  IV 

This  play  was  printed  in  1700  as  revived  at  Lin- 
coln's Inn  Fields.  On  the  title  page  it  is  said  to  be 
revised  with  alterations.  This  revision  is  attributed 
to  Betterton  and  to  him  or  whomever  was  the  com- 
piler great  credit  is  due,  as  the  only  change  is  in  the 
direction  of  judicious  omission.  Indeed,  this  adapta- 
tion is  superior  to  modern  acting  versions  in  that  it 
retains  without  curtailment  the  speeches  of  the  Prince 
and  Falstaff  in  the  Second  Act,  when  each  assumes 
the  character  of  the  King,  and  also  retains  the  char- 
acter of  Glendower,  for  the  omission  of  which,  as 
well  as  for  the  abridgment  of  the  other  scene,  there 
is  no  good  reason. 

The  Second  Part  of  King  Henry  IV 

The  great  success  of  Betterton's  revival  of  "  i 
Henry  IV  "  induced  him  to  revive  the  Second  Pa^t  not 
long  after.  The  revision  was  not  printed,  however, 
until  after  his  death,  and  then  was  undated.  In  this 
instance  he  was  not  so  happy  as  in  the  previous  one, 
for  he  omitted  much  of  the  play  and  substituted  for 
the  omitted  portions  a  considerable  borrowing  from 
"  Henry  V."  To  specify,  he  rejects  I,  i,  II,  3,  III,  i, 
and  V,  I,  2,  and  4,  and  his  Fifth  Act  is  an  abridg- 
ment of  the  First  Act  of  "  Henry  V,"  to  which  is 
added  the  second  scene  of  the  Second  Act  of  the  same 
play.  Praise  is  due  him  for  not  altering  what  he  used, 
but  we  cannot  justify  him  in  making  a  patchwork  of 
"  2  Henry  IV  "  and  "  Henry  V,"  or  at  least  as  an  ad- 
aptation of  "  2  Henry  IV  "  cannot  commend  the  play. 


CHAPTER  VI.     HENRY  V—  i,  2,  AND  3  HENRY 

VI  — RICHARD  III  — HENRY  VIII  — 

TROILUS  AND  CRESSIDA 

The  Life  of  King  Henry  V 

THE  only  alteration  of  this  play  mentioned 
in  the  Old  Variorum  list  is  one  by  Kemble. 
As  this  was  only  with  such  omissions  and 
transpositions  as  seemed  necessary  to  fit 
the  drama  for  the  stage,  it  need  not  detain  us. 

Soon  after  the  Restoration,  the  Earl  of  Orrery 
wrote  a  rimed  play  bearing  the  same  title,  but  having 
no  resemblance  to  Shakespeare's  except  in  an  his- 
torical way. 

Aaron  Hill,  who  was  a  poetaster  and  dramatist 
of  considerable  pretensions  in  his  time,  but  who  is 
now  remembered  chiefly  for  his  kindness  to  Thomson 
when  that  poet  came,  unknown,  to  London,  produced 
a  play  called  "  Henry  the  Fifth,  or  the  Conquest  of 
France  by  the  English,"  which  was  acted  at  Drury 
Lane  six  times  in  the  season  of  1723-24,  and  was 
published  with  his  other  works. 

Hill  says  in  his  preface  to  the  reader:  "The  in- 
imitable and  immortal  Shakespeare,  about  a  hundred 
and  thirty  years  since,  wrote  a  play  on  this  subject 
and  called  it  the  '  Life  of  King  Henry  the  Fifth  ' :  mine 
is  new  fabric,  yet  I  built  on  his  foundation;  and  the 
reader,  I  am  afraid,  will  too  easily  discover  without 
the  help  of  a  comparison  in  what  places  I  am  indebted 
to  him." 

Hill's  play  differs  so  entirely  from  Shakespeare's 

lOI 


102      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

that  it  cannot  be  called  an  alteration  of  it.  It  is 
rather  a  new  play  with  borrowings.  It  is  only  inter- 
esting as  showing  how  Frenchified  the  taste  of  its 
author  and  his  times  was.  The  comic  element  is  en- 
tirely omitted,  the  scene  is  always  in  France,  thus  ob- 
serving the  unity  of  place  more  nearly,  and  much 
intrigue  is  introduced.  The  characters  of  the  Dau- 
phin and  the  Princess  are  amplified  and  a  new  char- 
acter is  introduced,  Harriet,  niece  of  Lord  Scroop, 
whom  Henry  is  said  to  have  seduced  and  afterwards 
deserted,  with  the  offer  of  a  pension.  She  figures 
most  prominently  in  the  Fourth  Act,  when  she  is  ar- 
rested on  suspicion  of  treason  and  is  brought  before 
the  King.  She  at  first  reproaches  him  for  his  deser- 
tion of  her,  but  is  soon  pacified.  She  then  gives  him 
the  Dauphin's  letter  and  stabs  herself.  The  King 
is  supposed  to  have,  some  time  before,  visited  France, 
under  the  assumed  name  of  Owen  Tudor,  and  to  have 
seen  the  Princess,  at  which  time  she  is  represented  to 
have  fallen  in  love  with  him.  She  appears  frequently 
in  the  play  and  in  the  Third  Act  learns  that  Owen 
Tudor  is  the  King.  ^ 

Hill  seems  to  have  read  Orrery's  play  and  to  have 
taken  a  hint  or  two  from  it.  He  borrows,  without 
regard  to  their  sequence  in  the  original,  various 
passages  from  Shakespeare's  play,  but  takes  pains  to 
spoil  them  by  modification.  It  hardly  need  be  said 
that  the  play  is  far  inferior  to  Shakespeare's  both  as 
to  plot  and  dialogue  and  well  merits  the  oblivion  into 
which  it  has  fallen. 

In  a  farce  entitled  "  Half-pay  Ofl&cers,"  given  at 
Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  January  ii,  1720,  one  of  the 
characters  was  Fluellen  and  the  part  is  about  as 
in  "  Henry  V."  Two  speeches  are  introduced  from 
"  Much  Ado."      Fluellen  was  a  new  character  to 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  103 

many  of  the  audience,  as  Shakespeare  was  not  very 
much  read  at  this  period  and  his  "  Henry  V  "  had 
not  been  acted  since  the  Restoration. 

The  First  Part  of  King  Henry  VI 
This  has  not  been  altered. 

The  Second  and  Third  Parts  of  King  Henry  VI 

"  Henry  the  Sixth,  Part  First,  with  the  Murder 
of  Humphrey  Duke  of  Gloucester,"  168 1,  by  the 
Restoration  dramatist  John  Crowne,  is  a  bad  altera- 
tion of  this  play.     In  the  prologue  we  read: 

"  Today  we  bring  old  gathered  herbs  'tis  true, 
But  such  as  in  sweet  Shakespeare's  garden  grew. 
And  all  his  plants  immortal  you  esteem, 
Your  mouths  are  never  out  of  taste  with  him. 
Howe'er  to  make  your  appetites  more  keen, 
Not  only  oily  words  are  sprinkled  in ; 
But  what  to  please  you  gives  us  better  hope, 
A  little  vinegar  against  the  Pope." 

The  dedication  is  to  Sir  Charles  Sedley,  and  in  it 
Crowne  says:  "I  called  it  in  the  prologue  Shake- 
speare's play,  though  he  has  no  title  to  the  fortieth 
part  of  It.  The  text  I  took  out  of  his  '  Second  Part  of 
Henry  the  Sixth,'  but  as  most  texts  are  served,  I  left 
It  as  soon  as  I  could.  For  though  Shakespeare  be 
generally  very  delightful,  he  is  not  so  always.  His 
volume  is  all  uphill  anci  down;  Paradise  was  never 
more  pleasant  than  some  parts  of  it,  nor  Ireland  and 
Greenland  colder  and  more  uninhabitable  than  others. 
And  I  have  undertaken  to  cultivate  one  of  the  most 
barren  places  in  it." 


104     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

The  declared  purpose  of  the  play  is  to  expose  to 
the  people  the  follies  of  the  Roman  Catholic  saints 
days,  prayers,  etc.  Langbaine  tells  us  that  the  play 
was  opposed  by  the  Popish  faction,  some  members 
of  which  by  their  power  at  court  got  it  suppressed; 
however,  it  was  well  received  by  the  rest  of  the 
audience.  In  spite  of  the  declaration  of  the  dedica- 
tion, Crowne's  play  is  made  up  chiefly  of  the  first 
four  acts  of  "  2  Henry  VI."  It  ends  with  the  breaking 
out  of  Cade's  Rebellion.  Crowne  has  enlarged  the 
parts  of  the  Queen,  Suffolk,  and  the  Cardinal.  Some 
scenes  are  rejected,  as  that  containing  the  killing  of 
Suffolk,  while  others  are  expanded,  as  that  in  which 
the  Cardinal  dies.  There  is  also  a  scene  dealing  with 
the  death  of  Gloucester.  The  unity  of  place  is  ob- 
served by  making  the  action  all  take  place  at  the 
Court  of  Westminster.  Crowne  sometimes  follows 
Shakespeare's  phraseology  closely  and  sometimes 
modifies  it  greatly.  He  also  makes  great  additions 
of  his  own.  He  has  "  sprinkled  in  "  a  great  deal  of 
"vinegar  against  the  Pope,"  both  by  what  he  makes 
his  characters  say  and  by  the  hypocrisy  with  ^vhich 
he  endows  all  the  Roman  Catholic  ecclesiastics  and 
their  followers  and  agents. 

Using  the  drama  as  a  means  of  stirring  up  re- 
ligious hatred,  as  was  done  in  this  case  and  was  done 
later  by  Cibber  in  his  "  Papal  Tyranny,"  is  an  abomi- 
nable practice  and  can  be  excused  only  in  the  light  of 
the  unsettled  condition  of  the  times  when  these  two 
plays  appeared,  times  when  the  memory  of  plots  and 
persecutions  was  still  fresh  and  when  Romish  emis- 
saries and  intriguers  were  perniciously  active.  We 
are  glad  that  Shakespeare  was  too  generous-hearted 
to  stoop  to  such  dramatic  felony.  Crowne's  play 
shows  to  disadvantage  in  this  respect  as  in  all  others. 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  105 

and  thus  bears  witness  to  his  lack  of  taste  and  dra- 
matic ability. 

Crowne's  "  Henry  the  Sixth,  Part  Second,  or  the 
Misery  of  Civil  War,"  1681,  tak.es  up  the  history 
where  the  play  just  described  leaves  it,  thus  com- 
mencing with  Cade's  Rebellion.  In  spite  of  his  state- 
ment in  his  prologue  that,  "  The  divine  Shakespeare 
did  not  lay  one  stone,"  much  is  taken  from  that  source 
either  verbatim  or  with  slight  modification,  although 
far  less  is  borrowed  than  in  the  preceding  play. 
Steevens  observes  that  surely  Shakespeare's  works 
could  have  been  but  little  read  at  a  period  when 
Crowne  could  venture  such  an  assertion. 

The  chief  additions  made  by  Crowne  are  love 
scenes,  which  are  numerous.  Warwick  makes  love 
to  Lady  Grey  in  two  scenes,  in  the  latter  of  which  she 
rejects  him.  Edward  Plantagenet  has  an  intrigue 
with  a  new  female  character.  Lady  Eleanor  Butler, 
which  gives  occasion  for  several  more  love  scenes. 
In  the  Fourth  Act,  after  rejecting  Warwick,  Lady 
Grey  marries  Edward,  who  is  bitterly  reproached  by 
Lady  Eleanor  for  his  desertion  of  her.  In  the  Fifth 
Act,  Lady  Eleanor  in  boy's  clothes  is  slain  at  the 
battle  of  Barnet  by  King  Edward,  who  is  ignorant  of 
her  identity. 

This  exhibits  clearly  and  strikingly  that  treatment 
common  to  most  of  the  alterations  of  the  histories, 
the  thrusting  into  them  of  amorous  intrigues.  The 
reason  for  this  and  its  effect  on  the  plays  have  been 
dealt  with  in  the  general  discussion  and  criticism  given 
earlier  in  the  book,  so  that  further  notice  of  this  fea- 
ture would  be  superfluous  here. 

Ambrose  Phillips  ("Namby  Pamby")  wrote  a 
dull  declamatory  tragedy  called  "  Humphrey,  Duke 
of  Gloster,"  covering  the  same  ground  as  "  2  Henry 


io6     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

VI."  He  borrows  about  thirty  lines  from  it,  which 
fact  he  is  careful  to  mention  in  his  preface  to  the 
reader,  in  which  he  also  indicates  where  they  may  be 
found. 

Another  bad  alteration  of  the  Second  and  Third 
parts  of  Henry  VI  was  made  by  Theophilus  Cibber, 
son  of  Colley  Cibber,  and  represented  in  1723,  It 
bears  the  cumbersome  title  "An  Historical  Tragedy 
of  the  Civil  Wars  between  the  Houses  of  York  and 
Lancaster  in  the  Reign  of  King  Henry  Sixth,"  and 
deals  with  the  same  period  as  Crowne's  Second  Part, 
from  which  it  borrows  not  a  little.  Love  scenes  be- 
tween Prince  Edward  and  Lady  Anne,  Warwick's 
daughter,  are  a  new  feature.  Much  more  of  Shake- 
speare is  retained  than  is  done  in  Crowne's  plays,  but 
as  usual  there  is  a  good  deal  of  the  reviser's  own. 
Genest  conjectures  that  Cibber,  who  was  then  only 
twenty  years  old,  had  the  assistance  of  Savage,  with 
whom  he  was  intimate,  in  writing  such  passages  as 
are  new. 

"  The  Roses,  or  King  Henry  the  Sixth,"  an  his- 
torical tragedy  given  at  Reading  School  in  ^795, 
consists  mainly  of  four  acts,  the  first  being  excepted, 
of  "  3  Henry  VI."  It  is  by  the  principal.  Doctor 
Valpy,  who  also  adapted  "  King  John"  and  (1802) 
"  The  Merchant  of  Venice,"  in  the  latter  case  by 
cutting  out  the  last  act.  The  scene  is  confined  to 
England,  to  preserve  as  far  as  possible  the  unity  of 
place,  and  the  duration  of  the  play  is  shortened.  For 
the  most  part,  the  compiler  uses  Shakespeare's  lan- 
guage; occasionally,  however,  he  alters  it  slightly 
and  adds  some  words  or  lines  that  are  his  own.  Pas- 
sages are  transferred  here  from  First  and  Second 
Henry  VI  anci  from  "  Richard  II."  The  play  was 
provided  with  an  epilogue  by  that  ludicrously  prosaic 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  107 

and  now  forgotten  poet  laureate,  Henry  James  Pye. 

At  Drury  Lane,  December  22,  18 17,  was  acted 
"  Richard,  Duke  of  York,  or  the  Contention  of  York 
and  Lancaster,"  with  Kean  in  the  principal  role. 
This  play  is  compiled  from  the  three  parts  of  Henry 
VI,  centering  about  the  events  which  form  the  subject 
of  the  Second  Part  and  especially  the  attempts  of 
Richard  to  get  the  crown.  It  opens  at  the  fourth 
scene  of  the  Second  Act  of  "  i  Henry  VI,"  and  has  a 
few  scenes  from  this  part  in  the  First  Act.  The  Sec- 
ond, Third,  and  Fourth  Acts  are  all  from  "  2  Henry 
VI,"  and  the  Fifth  Act  is  made  up  of  the  First  Act 
and  the  second  scene  of  the  Second  Act  of  "  3  Henry 
VI." 

The  main  object  of  the  compilation  was  to  afford 
Kean  the  greatest  opportunity  in  the  part  of  the  Duke 
of  York,  and  for  this  reason  the  play  ends  without 
any  conclusion  of  the  history  of  Henry  Sixth  and  is 
given  the  new  name.  The  editor  has  most  injudi- 
ciously and  unnecessarily,  as  there  was  ample  material 
in  the  three  Shakespearean  plays,  put  in  passages 
from  Chapman,  Webster,  and  Marston,  and  also  bor- 
rowed to  a  considerable  extent  from  Crowne's  Second 
Part  to  eke  out  the  Cade  scenes.  Thus  he  has  made 
an  indifferent  if  not  bad  compilation. 

The  Tragedy  of  King  Richard  III 

We  have  now  come  to  probably  the  most  famous 
of  all  the  alterations  of  Shakespeare,  Colley  Cibber's 
"  Richard  III."  This  version,  which  was  made  in 
1700,  entirely  supplanted  the  original  and,  as  some- 
what modified  by  J.  P.  Kemble  In  181 1,  still  keeps 
the  stage.  So  firm  has  its  hold  become  that  it  is 
said  that  even  Edwin  Booth  thought  it  on  the  whole 


io8      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

preferable  to  Shakespeare's  play  for  stage  purposes. 
When  the  original  was  revived  at  Covent  Garden, 
March  12,  1821,  it  was  looked  upon  as  an  alteration, 
we  are  told,  and  was  received  with  scant  favor.  So 
the  actors  went  back  to  Gibber.  It  is  to  Gibber, 
whose  play  the  managers  did  not  scruple  to  advertise 
as  Shakespeare's,  that  we  are  indebted,  as  has  been 
pointed  out  before,  for  the  time-honored  rants, 
"Richard's  himself  again!"  and  "Off  with  his 
head!     So  much  for  Buckingham  !  " 

Gibber's  changes  consist  largely  in  modification 
of  the  diction,  in  the  omission  of  scenes  of  the  original 
for  which  he  substituted  others  of  his  own  composi- 
tion, and  in  changes  in  minor  details  of  the  action. 
The  main  plot  is  substantially  retained.  Gibber  did 
not,  like  some  others  of  his  kind,  introduce  new  char- 
acters or  new  love  scenes,  and  for  this  forbearance  he 
deserves  great  credit. 

The  nature  and  the  extent  of  Gibber's  revision 
and  the  relation  of  his  play  to  Shakespeare's  will  best 
be  seen  when  his  play  shall  have  been  described. 

The  greater  part  of  Shakespeare's  First  Act  is 
omitted,  only  Gloster's  soliloquy  in  the  first  scene  and 
a  few  lines  from  another  soliloquy  of  his  in  the  second 
scene  being  retained.  The  scenes  containing  Glar- 
ence's  dream  and  Queen  Margaret's  curses,  two  of 
the  best  features  of  the  play,  are  excised.  This,  of 
course,  necessitates  large  additions ;  so  Gibber  begins 
his  play  during  the  lifetime  of  Henry  VI,  and  intro- 
duces a  good  deal  from  the  last  act  of  "  3  Henry  VI," 
eking  it  out  with  passages  from  "  2  Henry  IV  "  and 
"  Richard  II,"  and  with  not  a  little  of  his  own  inven- 
tion. The  scenes  from  "  3  Henry  VI "  are  far  in- 
ferior to  the  rejected  ones  of  "  Richard  III." 

Act  II  begins  with  an  unimportant  scene  between 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  109 

Tressel  and  Stanley.  Scene  2  is  like  Shakespeare's 
I,  2,  but  Bedford's  speech  at  the  funeral  of  Plenry  V, 
which  opens  "  i  Henry  VI,"  is  added  to  Anne's  part, 
and  numerous  minor  changes  are  made.  The  third 
scene  is  Shakespeare's  II,  2,  shortened  and  much  al- 
tered. In  Cibber,  Buckingham  announces  the  death 
of  King  Edward  to  the  Duchess  of  York.  Shake- 
speare's II,  3,  and  II,  4,  are  omitted. 

Gibber's  III,  i  is  like  III,  i  of  the  original,  but  is 
rewritten  and  considerably  abridged.  As  an  example 
of  Gibber's  blundering,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  he 
so  alters  the  dialogue  as  to  make  Gloster  attempt  to 
prove  himself  a  bastard  instead  of  his  brother. 
Much  of  this  act  has  disappeared.  The  second  scene 
is  made  up  of  parts  of  III,  5,  and  III,  7,  an  inter- 
view between  Anne  and  Gloster  being  added  by 
Gibber. 

Act  IV,  scene  i.  Is  much  altered  from  the  corre- 
sponding scene  in  Shakespeare.  It  is  improperly  laid 
in  the  Tower  instead  of  before  it,  and  Queen  Mar- 
garet is  permitted  to  see  the  children  and  even  to 
attempt  to  take  them  away,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
Richard  had  given  orders  that  no  one  should  be  ad- 
mitted. In  Shakespeare,  no  one  is  admitted.  Scene  2 
is  scene  2  of  the  original,  cut  down  and  badly  altered. 
In  this  scene  occur  some  ridiculous  lines,  which  are 
worth  quoting  as  an  example  of  the  stuff  Gibber  sub- 
stituted for  Shakespeare's  verse : 

"  I  tell  thee,  coz,  I've  lately  had  two  spiders 
Crawling  upon  my  startled  hopes.     Now  tho' 
Thy  friendly  hand  has  brushed  'em  from  me 
Yet  still  they  crawl  ofFensive  to  my  eyes. 
I  would  have  some  friend  to  tread  upon  'em." 

Scene  3   Is  greatly  modified.     Tyrrel  does  not 


no  ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

soliloquize  on  the  deaths  of  the  princes,  as  they  have 
not  yet  been  murdered,  but,  instead,  Dighton  and 
Forrest  are  with  him,  and  they  are  sent  to  perform 
the  deed.  Richard  is  given  a  soliloquy  in  which  he 
seems  to  show  some  feeling  of  compunction.  Tyrrel 
enters  and  reports  the  murder  of  the  princes,  and 
Richard  orders  him  to  put  their  bodies  into  a  coffin 
full  of  holes,  which  is  to  be  thrown  into  the  Thames. 
A  part  of  Shakespeare's  scene  4  is  incorporated  with 
this  scene.  In  the  next  scene,  Cibber  properly  omits 
most  of  the  long  dialogue  between  the  Queen  and 
Gloster,  but  Improperly  rejects  the  part  In  which 
Richard,  when  informed  of  the  coming  of  Richmond, 
gives  hasty  and  contradictory  orders.  He  leaves  out 
other  matter  also  that  should  have  been  retained. 

Act  V,  scene  i,  Is  Shakespeare's  V,  2,  with  lines 
from  IV,  5,  V,  3,  and  "  2  Henry  VI."  Scene  2  con- 
sists of  a  part  of  V,  3,  with  a  few  judicious  changes, 
but  with  many  unnecessary  and  several  absurd  ones. 
Scene  3  is  made  up  of  the  remainder  of  the  play.  A 
number  of  lines  are  borrowed  from  "  Henry  V." 
Among  other  ridiculous  changes,  Richmond  i^  made 
to  rejoice  at  the  coming  of  Elizabeth  to  congratulate 
him,  whereas,  in  history,  his  marriage  with  her  was 
reluctantly  made  for  political  reasons.  Cibber  had  the 
sense  to  remove  the  difficulty  of  representation  in- 
volved In  having  the  ghosts  address  Richard  and 
Richmond  as  if  they  were  asleep  within  a  short  dis- 
tance of  each  other. 

Such  Is  the  mutilation  of  the  great  Elizabethan's 
play  manufactured  by  Cibber,  who,  to  crown  all,  him- 
self acted  the  title  part,  for  which  his  voice,  It  is  said, 
unfitted  him. 

If  Cibber  had  altered  the  play  in  the  proper  spirit 
in  which  such  revisions  should  be  made,  he  would 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  in 

have  deserved  our  thanks,  for  the  play  is  certainly 
susceptible  of  improvement  in  many  minor  points. 
But  he  was  not  content  to  do  this,  as  we  have  seen, 
and,  besides  omitting  much  unnecessarily,  resorted  to 
the  contemptible  practice  of  constructing  scenes  out 
of  passages  from  other  plays.  There  was  enough 
material  in  "  Richard  III  "  to  make  five  acts  without 
thus  doing,  for  with  its  3,620  lines,  more  than  twice 
as  many  as  the  "  Comedy  of  Errors  "  has,  it  is  one  of 
the  very  longest  of  Shakespeare's  plays.  But  when,  in 
addition  to  this,  he  wantonly  and  often  absurdly 
modifies  the  diction  and  introduces  so  much  of  his 
own  stuff,  we  can  have  only  contempt  for  his  per- 
formance. A  few  judicious  changes  he  makes,  it  is 
true,  but  the  credit  for  them  is  so  overbalanced  by 
the  censure  he  deserves  for  those  alterations  that  are 
for  the  worse,  that  it  is  almost  lost  sight  of.  It  would 
be  tedious  and  unprofitable  to  discuss  the  numerous 
minor  changes  in  detail.  The  space  and  time  it  would 
take  cannot  be  better  occupied  than  by  reproducing 
Hazlitt's  criticism  of  the  whole  production.  "  In  the 
patchwork  '  Richard  III '  which  is  acted  under  the 
sanction  of  Shakespeare's  name  and  which  was  manu- 
factured by  Cibber,"  he  says,  "  some  of  the  most  im- 
portant and  striking  passages  in  the  principal  char- 
acters have  been  omitted  to  make  room  for  idle  and 
misplaced  extracts  from  other  plays;  the  only  inten- 
tion of  which  seems  to  have  been  to  make  the  char- 
acter of  Richard  as  odious  and  disgusting  as  possible. 
It  is  apparently  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  make 
Gloster  stab  King  Henry  on  the  stage  that  the  first 
abrupt  introduction  of  the  character  in  the  opening 
of  the  play  is  lost  in  the  tedious,  whining  morality  of 
the  uxorious  king  (taken  from  another  play)  — we 
say  tedious,  because  it  interrupts  the  business  of  the 


112     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

scene,  and  loses  its  beauty  and  effect  by  having  no 
intelligible  connection  with  the  previous  character  of 
the  mild,  well-meaning  monarch.  The  passages 
which  the  unfortunate  Henry  has  to  recite  are  beau- 
tiful and  pathetic  in  themselves,  but  they  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  world  that  Richard  has  to  '  bustle  in.' 
In  the  same  spirit  of  vulgar  caricature  is  the  scene 
between  Richard  and  Lady  Anne  (when  his  wife), 
interpolated  without  any  authority,  merely  to  gratify 
the  favorite  propensity  to  disgust  and  loathing.  With 
the  same  perverse  consistency,  Richard,  after  his  last 
fatal  struggle,  is  raised  up  by  some  galvanic  process, 
to  utter  the  imprecation,  without  any  motive  but  pure 
malignity,  which  Shakespeare  has  so  properly  put 
into  the  mouth  of  Northumberland  on  hearing  of 
Percy's  death.  To  make  room  for  these  worse  than 
needless  additions  many  of  the  most  striking  passages 
in  the  real  play  have  been  omitted  by  the  foppery 
and  ignorance  of  the  prompt-book  critics." 

The  Famous  History  of  the  Life  of  King  Henry  VHI 

No  alteration  of  this  play  appears  ever  to  have 
been  made. 

Troilus  and  Cressida 

Dryden,  whose  opinion  of  Shakespeare  has  been 
touched  upon  briefly  in  the  general  discussion  of  the 
subject,  besides  being  concerned  with  D'Avenant  in 
a  most  abominable  alteration  —  or,  rather,  travesty 
—  of  "The  Tempest,"  as  we  have  seen,  is  responsi- 
ble, this  time  solely  so,  for  another  remodeling  of 
Shakespeare,  namely,  a  version  of  this  play,  which  he 
had  produced  at  the  Duke's  Theatre  in  1679.  It  bore 
the  subtitle  "Truth  Found  too  Late,"  which  indi- 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  113 

cates  the  great  change  in  the  denouement  of  the  play 
and  in  the  characterization  of  the  title  characters.  1 
have  found  no  record  of  a  representation  of  the  origi- 
nal play  after  the  Restoration,  but  Dryden's  version 
was  acted  at  intervals  down  to  1733.  To  the  printed 
copies  he  prefixed  a  long  preface,  in  the  first  part  of 
which,  after  speaking  of  the  reverence  of  his  age  for 
Shakespeare  as  far  more  just  than  that  of  the  Gre- 
cians for  i^schylus,  he  makes  the  remarks  concerning 
Shakespeare's  language  and  style,  the  substance  of 
which  has  been  given  under  the  general  discussion  of 
the  revisers'  treatment  of  Shakespeare's  diction.  He 
thinks  the  play  to  be  one  of  the  author's  earlier  ef- 
forts, an  opinion  that  modern  scholarship  has  shown 
to  be  wrong.  We  are  fortunate  in  having  Dryden's 
own  statement  of  his  attitude  and  method  of  revision 
and  cannot  do  better  than  to  quote  such  parts  of  the 
preface  as  are  relevant. 

"  For  the  play  itself,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  the 
author  seems  to  have  begun  it  with  some  fire;  the 
characters  of  Pandarus  and  Thersites  are  promising 
enough;  but,  as  if  he  grew  weary  of  his  task  after 
an  entrance  or  two,  he  lets  them  fall;  and  the  latter 
part  of  the  tragedy  is  nothing  but  a  confusion  of 
drums  and  trumpets,  excursions,  and  alarms.  The 
chief  persons,  who  give  name  to  the  tragedy,  are  left 
alive;  Cressida  is  false  and  is  not  punished.  Yet, 
after  all,  because  the  play  was  Shakespeare's  and 
that  there  appeared  in  some  places  of  it  the  admirable 
genius  of  the  author,  I  undertook  to  remove  that 
heap  of  rubbish  under  which  many  excellent  thoughts 
lay  wholly  buried.  Accordingly  I  new-modeled  the 
plot,  threw  out  many  unnecessary  persons,  improved 
those  characters  which  were  begun  and  left  unfinished, 
as  Hector,  Troilus,   Pandarus,   and  Thersites,   and 


114     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

added  that  of  Andromache.  After  this  I  made,  with 
no  small  trouble,  an  order  and  connection  of  all  the 
scenes;  removing  them  from  the  places  where  they 
were  inartificially  set;  and,  though  it  was  impossible 
to  keep  them  all  unbroken,  because  the  scene  must  be 
sometimes  in  the  city  and  sometimes  in  the  camp,  yet 
I  have  so  ordered  them,  that  there  is  a  coherence  of 
them  with  one  another,  and  a  dependence  on  the  main 
design;  no  leaping  from  Troy  to  the  Grecian  tents, 
and  thence  back  again  in  the  same  act,  but  a  due  pro- 
portion of  time  allowed  for  every  motion. 

"  I  need  not  say  that  I  have  refined  his  language, 
which  before  was  obsolete;  but  I  am  willing  to  ac- 
knowledge that  as  I  have  often  drawn  his  English 
nearer  to  our  times,  so  I  have  sometimes  conformed 
my  own  to  his;  and,  consequently,  the  language  is 
not  altogether  so  pure  as  It  is  significant. 

"The  scenes  of  Pandarus  and  Cressida,  of  Troilus 
and  Pandarus,  of  Andromache  with  Hector  and  the 
Trojans,  in  the  second  act,  are  wholly  new;  together 
with  that  of  Nestor  and  Ulysses  with  Thersites,  and 
that  of  Thersites  with  Ajax  and  Achilles.  I  vnW  not 
weary  my  reader  with  the  scenes  which  are  added  of 
Pandarus  and  the  lovers,  in  the  third,  and  those  of 
Thersites,  which  are  wholly  altered;  but  I  cannot  omit 
the  last  scene  in  it,  which  is  almost  half  the  act,  be- 
twixt Troilus  and  Hector.  .  .  .  The  beginning 
scenes  of  the  fourth  act  are  either  added  or  changed 
wholly  by  me;  the  middle  of  it  is  Shakespeare  altered 
and  mingled  with  my  own;  three  or  four  of  the  last 
scenes  are  altogether  new.  And  the  whole  fifth  act, 
both  the  plot  and  the  writing  are  my  own  additions." 

This  is  followed  by  what  is  perhaps  Dryden's 
most  ambitious  piece  of  dramatic  criticism,  "  The 
Grounds  of  Criticism  in  Tragedy,"  to  the  principles 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  115 

set  forth  in  which  he  endeavored  to  make  Shake- 
speare's play,  by  alteration,  conform. 

Dryden's  having  been  at  pains  to  indicate  his 
chief  modifications  will  allow  the  forgoing  of  an  ex- 
tended description  of  his  play  and  the  confining  of 
our  account  of  it  to  an  exhibition  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  amalgamation  of  his  own  additions  with 
the  original  is  m.ade  and  to  the  giving  of  the  details 
of  some  of  the  changes  he  either  merely  mentions  or 
does  not  note  in  the  preface.  The  "  unnecessary  per- 
sons "  omitted  are  Cassandra,  Helen,  Paris,  Deipho- 
bus,  Helenus,  and  Antenor.  Shakespeare's  prologue 
is  superseded  by  one  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  ghost 
of  Shakespeare. 

Act  First  is  virtually  as  in  the  original,  with  the 
exception  of  considerable  abridgment  and  a  rearrange- 
ment of  scenes. 

The  Second  Act  is  a  heterogeneous  mixture  of 
Shakespeare  and  Dryden.  The  first  scene  is  a  part  of 
Shakespeare's  II,  2,  joined  with  a  new  part  consisting 
of  a  dialogue  between  Hector  and  Andromache,  in 
which  she  exhorts  him  to  challenge  some  warrior  of 
the  Greeks.  The  second  scene,  which  is  between 
Pandarus  and  Cressida  and  Pandarus  and  Troilus,  is 
mostly  new,  there  being  about  twenty  lines  only  from 
Shakespeare's  III,  2.  The  third  scene,  in  which  Nes- 
tor, Ulysses,  Thersites,  and  Ajax  appear,  is  made  up 
of  parts  of  I,  3,  and  II,  2,  of  the  original,  and  of  much 
additional  matter. 

The  Third  Act  is  altered  slightly,  various  parts 
of  Shakespeare's  corresponding  act  being  united  with 
new  material,  until  the  concluding  scene  between 
Hector  and  Troilus,  which  is  entirely  new.  This  last 
feature,  the  preface  states,  was  suggested  by  Betterton. 
It  is  an  imitation  of  a  quarrel  between  Agamemnon 


ii6      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

and  Menelaus  in  the  "  Iphigenia  In  Aulis  "  of  Euri- 
pedes,  and  Dryden  was  particularly  proud  of  it.  We 
prefer,  however,  the  fine  scene  between  Achilles  and 
Ulysses,  which,  save  a  few  lines  put  in  Dryden's 
IV,  2,  is  rejected  to  make  room  for  it. 

In  the  Fourth  Act  is  initiated  the  principal  change 
in  the  play,  that  in  the  character  of  Cressida.  Shake- 
speare, following  Chaucer,  represents  her  as  false  to 
Troilus,  but  Dryden,  to  please  the  ladies,  makes  her 
faithful,  thus  going  counter  to  the  hitherto  invariable 
portrayal  of  her.  In  Dryden,  Calchas  advises  her  to 
dissemble  love  to  Diomede,  which  she  does,  giving 
him  —  to  mention  an  unnecessary  change  in  an  unim- 
portant particular  —  a  ring,  instead  of  a  sleeve  as  in 
Shakespeare.  Among  several  minor  changes,  Troi- 
lus is  made  to  fight  with  Diomede.  Lines  are  bor- 
rowed from  several  scenes  of  the  original,  but  the 
greater  part  of  the  act  is  the  reviser's  own. 

It  follows,  of  course,  that  the  Fifth  Act  is  practi- 
cally a  new  one,  although  parts  of  several  of  Shake- 
speare's scenes  are  used.  Cressida,  on  being  re- 
proached by  Troilus,  stabs  herself  to  prove  her*  inno- 
cence and  dies  forgiving  Troilus,  who  bitterly  curses 
himself  for  believing  her  false.  Troilus  then  kills 
Diomede  and  is  in  turn  killed  by  Achilles,  and  the 
Greeks  are  victorious. 

All  will  agree  with  Scott  that  "  the  modern  im- 
provements of  Dryden  show  to  very  little  advantage 
beside  the  venerable  structure  to  which  they  have 
been  attached."  The  adaptation  to  the  central  plot 
theory  is  made  with  some  skill,  but  the  carrying  out 
of  this  caused  Dryden  to  omit  some  of  the  best  pas- 
sages in  the  play,  such  as,  for  example,  the  fine  speech 
of  Ulysses  to  Achilles  on  time's  so  quickly  causing 
one's  deeds  and  oneself  to  be  forgotten.    The  change 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  117 

in  the  conception  of  Cressida  would  not  have  been 
accepted  in  Shakespeare's  time  when  her  infidelity 
was  proverbial,  and  her  reputed  punishment  of  be- 
coming a  beggar  and  leper  was  a  matter  of  literary 
allusion.  But  by  Dryden's  time  her  story  and  the 
prejudice  against  her  had  doubtless  been  largely 
forgotten,  or,  if  remembered,  did  not  stand  in  the 
way  of  transforming  her  when  the  canons  of  so- 
called  dramatic  art  demanded  such  a  change.  The 
rule  which  is  responsible  for  this  new  characteriza- 
tion of  the  heroine  of  this  play  has  been  sufficiently 
noticed  and  criticised  in  the  general  discussion  and  so 
this  feature  need  not  be  treated  further  here.  This 
is  not  the  only  rule  of  the  kind,  however,  applied  by 
Dryden  in  revising  the  play,  for  poetical  justice  is  also 
conspicuous,  Troilus,  who  is  left  alive  by  Shakespeare, 
being  killed  in  punishment  for  his  doubt  of  Cressida's 
fidelity,  and,  what  is  a  strange  variation  from  classical 
story  for  so  good  a  classical  scholar  as  Dryden  to 
make,  Diomede  being  slain  by  Troilus  for  his  attempt 
to  alienate  Cressida's  affections. 

There  is  no  gainsaying  that,  for  the  stage,  parts 
of  Shakespeare's  play  need  rearrangement,  and  this 
Dryden  has  in  some  respects  done  satisfactorily,  but 
he  and  his  times  are  strongly  to  be  censured  for 
his  not  resting  content  with  such  treatment.  The 
denouement  as  It  is  in  Shakespeare  and  Chaucer  Is 
much  more  true  to  life  and  therefore  artistic  than  It 
is  In  Dryden,  where  there  Is  a  resort  to  the  conven- 
tional expedient  of  the  heroine's  stabbing  herself  to 
establish  her  innocence. 

The  additions  which  Dryden  makes  show  consid- 
erable invention,  but  are  unnecessary  and  take  the 
place  of  superior  parts  of  the  original.  Among  other 
minor  departures  from  Shakespeare,  he  has  enlarged 


Ii8      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

the  parts  of  Pandarus  and  Thersites  and  put  into 
their  mouths  language  which  descends  to  ribaldry,  a 
feature  that  is  a  wretched  substitute  for  the  several 
characters  whose  omission  has  been  noted  and  their 
speeches. 

Dryden's  opinion  of  Shakespeare's  language  and 
style  has  been  already  given,  so  then  we  are  not  sur- 
prised to  find  that  throughout  the  play  he  has  sub- 
jected the  diction  to  the  process  of  refining,  as  he 
called  it,  and  has  rendered  it  such  as  the  putting  into 
practice  of  his  ideas  on  this  point  would  lead  us  to 
expect  it  to  be.  An  example  of  the  result  of  this 
treatment  will  be  more  effective,  if  compared  with 
the  corresponding  passage  in  Shakespeare,  in  show^- 
ing  the  extent  of  the  transformation  than  any  amount 
of  description.  I  have  chosen  a  part  of  Nestor's 
reply  to  Agamemnon  in  I,  3 : 

"  With  due  observance  of  thy  sovereign  seat, 
Great  Agamemnon,  Nestor  shall  apply 
Thy  well-weighed  words.     In  struggling  with  mis- 
fortune ^ 
Lies  the  true  proof  of  virtue.    On  smooth  seas  « 
How  many  bauble-boats  dare  set  their  sails 
And  make  an  equal  way  with  firmer  vessels! 
But  let  the  tempest  once  enrage  that  sea, 
And  then  behold  the  strong-ribbed  argosy, 
Bounding  between  the  ocean  and  the  air, 
Like  Perseus  mounted  on  his  Pegasus, 
Then  where  are  those  weak  rivals  of  the  main? 
Or,  to  avoid  the  tempest,  fled  to  port, 
Or  made  a  prey  to  Neptune.     Even  thus 
Do  empty  show,  and  true  prized  worth  divide 
In  storms  of  fortune." 

What  an  emasculation   has   here  been  effected  I 
In  view  of  his  violence  both  to  plot  and  to  diction  we 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  119 

shall  again  have  to  find  "  Glorious  John  "  guilty  of 
dramatic  felony,  the  only  mitigating  circumstance 
which  inclines  us  to  mercy  being  the  fact  of  his  living 
in  the  times  when  he  did,  which  relieves  him  largely 
of  the  responsibility  for  his  literary  notions  and  ac- 
tions. 


CHAPTER  VII.     CORIOLANUS  — TITUS 

ANDRONICUS  — ROMEO  AND 

JULIET  — TIMON  OF 

ATHENS 

Coriolanus 

THIS  tragedy  has  been  several  times  altered. 
The  first  remodeling  was  made  by  Tate  in 
1682,  and  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  done 
will  be  seen  from  the  reviser's  remarks  in 
his  epistle  dedicatory:  "Much  of  what  is  offered 
here,  is  fruit  that  grew  in  the  richness  of  his  [Shake- 
speare's] soil;  and,  whatever  the  superstructure 
prove,  it  was  my  good  fortune  to  build  upon  a  rock. 
Upon  a  close  view  of  this  story,  there  appeared  in 
some  passages  no  small  resemblance  with  the  busy 
faction  of  our  time.  And  I  confess,  I  chose  rather 
to  set  the  parallel  nearer  to  sight  than  to  thirow  it 
off  at  further  distance,"  He  says  further  that  the 
moral  of  the  scenes  of  his  version  is  loyalty  or  sub- 
mission and  adherence  to  established  lawful  power. 
The  prologue  tells  what  Tate  has  done. 

"  He  only  ventures  to  make  gold  from  ore 
And  turn  to  money,  what  lay  dead  before," 

He  thought  it  necessary  to  change  the  title,  so  he 
called  his  play  "  The  Ingratitude  of  a  Common- 
wealth, or  the  Fall  of  Calus  Martius  Coriolanus." 

Act  I,  scene  i,  aside  from  some  omission  and  much 
change  of  diction,  is  about  as  in  Shakespeare.     Scene 

120 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  121 

2  is  partly  like  I,  3.  The  lines  before  "  Enter  a  gen- 
tlewoman "  are  versified.  Valeria  is  made  a  "  talka- 
tive fantastical "  lady,  her  talk  being  like  that  of  a 
society  woman  of  Tate's  time.  Scene  3  is  like  I,  4, 
and  I,  5,  save  that  Lartius  is  omitted.  Scene  4  is  a 
combination  of  scenes  8  and  9. 

The  first  scene  of  Act  II  is  made  up  of  the  parts 
of  II,  I  and  II,  2  that  are  in  verse,  but  the  language 
is  greatly  altered.     Scene  2  is  like  II,  3. 

Act  III,  scene  i,  follows  the  original.  Then  a 
new  scene  is  added,  which  is  between  Volumnia  and 
Valeria,  the  latter  of  whom  is  passing  by  in  a  chair. 
Valeria  talks  garrulously  of  various  things,  such  as 
Coriolanus's  obstinacy,  her  dress,  her  lovers,  etc. 
Parts  of  III,  2,  III,  3,  and  IV,  i,  follow. 

The  Fourth  Act  is  a  jumble  of  portions  of  Acts 
IV  and  V  from  IV,  4,  to  V,  3,  inclusive.  The  scenes 
in  Antium  are  transferred  to  Corioli.  A  part  of  V,  2 
which  is  in  prose  in  Shakespeare,  is  put  in  verse.  In 
this  act  is  introduced  a  new  character  who  is  to  play 
a  considerable  part  in  the  next  act,  namely,  Nigrid- 
ius,  a  villain  discharged  by  Coriolanus  and  received 
by  Aufidius.  Up  to  this  point,  Tate  has  not  departed 
widely  from  Shakespeare,  but  in  the  next  and  last 
act,  he  alters  so  greatly  that  little  of  the  original  re- 
mains. The  act  opens  with  a  scene  in  which  the 
women  of  the  play  are  the  participants  and  speakers. 
Volumnia  has  heard  that  Nigridius  is  plotting  against 
Coriolanus  and  determines  to  go  to  Corioli  with  Vir- 
gilia  and  young  Martius.  A  scene  follows  between 
Aufidius  and  Nigridius,  in  which  the  latter  exhorts 
the  former  to  take  revenge  on  Coriolanus.  They 
learn  that  the  Volscian  senate  is  trying  Coriolanus 
and  Aufidius  plans  to  go  to  the  council  hall  and  kill 
him.    The  scene  then  changes  to  the  council  hall  and 


122      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

is  somewhat  like  Shakespeare's  last  scene.  But  Tate, 
however,  piles  agony  on  agony.  Coriolanus  and 
Aufidius  fight  and  are  both  mortally  wounded.  The 
former  does  not  die  immediately,  as  in  Shakespeare, 
but  is  kept  alive  for  some  time.  Before  he  dies,  Vir- 
gilia  comes  in,  also  in  a  dying  condition,  from  a 
wound  which  she  has  herself  inflicted  to  avoid  the 
worse  fate  of  being  ravished  by  Nigridius.  At  this 
point,  Aufidius  dies.  Then  Nigridius  enters  and 
boasts  of  having  broken  the  bones  of  young  Martius. 
Volumnia,  raving  mad,  comes  in  with  her  grandson 
and,  seizing  a  sword,  kills  Nigridius.  The  boy  dies 
and  finally  Coriolanus  makes  a  dying  speech  and  the 
play  ends. 

Tate's  modifications  are  not  wholly  bad,  for  he 
has  made  a  few  judicious,  or  at  least  permissible, 
omissions  and  transpositions  in  the  first  four  acts. 
But  far  too  much  is  rejected  to  make  room  for  his 
own  Fifth  Act.  Besides,  he  takes  great  and  unwar- 
rantable liberties  with  the  dialogue  and  adds  much 
that  is  unnecessary  and  uninspired.  His  transmogri- 
fication of  Valeria  into  a  contemporary  fashidhable 
v/oman  is  absurd. 

When  we  come  to  the  Fifth  Act,  in  which  Tate 
exercises  his  own  invention  so  freely,  we  find  much 
that  is  contemptible.  He  wrote  the  act  to  point  the 
moral  announced  in  his  dedication.  Coriolanus  comes 
to  grief  because  he  has  been  disloyal  to  established 
authority.  He  is  kept  alive  to  view  the  misfortunes 
of  the  various  members  of  his  family  as  a  further 
punishment  for  this  disloyalty.  Aufidius  and  Ni- 
gridius, for  the  introduction  of  the  latter  of  whom 
there  is  no  warrant  and  no  necessity,  lose  their  lives 
as  poetical  justice  for  their  plotting  against  Corio- 
lanus.   As  has  been  noted  before,  Shakespeare  had  not 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  123 

observed  this  "  rule  of  art "  in  the  case  of  the  fonner 
character  and  so  Tate  seized  the  opportunity  to  "  im- 
prove "  on  him  in  this  respect.  On  how  much  higher 
an  artistic  plane  Shakespeare's  treatment  of  the  char- 
acter of  Aufidius  is,  all  will  now  admit. 

The  finale  as  altered  is,  moreover,  a  revolting 
exhibition  of  physical  horrors  which  nowadays  would 
not  be  put  in  a  drama,  let  alone  be  witnessed  with 
satisfaction  by  an  audience.  Altogether,  this  Fifth 
Act  of  Tate's  is  a  wretched  graft  upon  the  story  and 
Shakespeare's  play,  and  he  merits  nothing  but  censure 
for  his  performance. 

A  second  alteration  of  Coriolanus  was  made  in 
17 19  by  John  Dennis,  whom  we  have  met  before  as 
a  critic  of  Shakespeare's  art  and  as  an  alterer  of  his 
"  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor." 

Dennis  also  felt  it  to  be  necessary  to  change  the 
title,  which  he  made,  "The  Invader  of  his  Country, 
or  the  Fatal  Resentment."  In  spite  of  the  facts  that 
a  great  part  of  the  tragedy  is  Shakespeare's  and 
that  the  part  of  Coriolanus  was  well  acted  by  Booth, 
the  play  was  produced  only  three  times  and  then  with- 
drawn, to  the  great  displeasure  of  Dennis,  the  man- 
agers of  Drury  Lane  maintaining  that  it  was  not 
sufficiently  profitable.  For  my  account  of  this  play 
I  shall  have  to  rely  upon  Genest. 

Dennis's  First  Act  consists  of  the  military  scenes 
only.  His  Second  Act  begins  with  a  scene  between 
Volumnia  and  Virgilia.  The  part  of  Shakespeare's 
scene  i  between  Menenius  and  the  tribunes  and  Me- 
nenius  and  Volumnia  and  the  scene  in  the  Capitol  are 
omitted,  as  well  as  some  other  and  minor  portions. 
A  good  deal  of  low  comedy  is  added  to  the  parts  of 
the  citizens  in  scene  3  of  the  original.  In  Act  III, 
he  badly  mutilates  the  first  scene,  especially  the  part 


124     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

between  Coriolanus  and  the  tribunes.  The  act  ends 
with  a  tasteless  scene  in  which  Coriolanus  takes  leave 
of  Virgilia,  the  dialogue  being  out  of  keeping  with 
the  characters.  The  chief  additions  to  the  Fourth 
Act,  which  begins  at  about  Shakespeare's  IV,  4,  are 
more  low  comedy  speeches  and  a  conclusion  to  the 
scene  at  Rome,  in  which  the  citizens  are  represented 
as  carrying  off  the  tribunes  with  the  intention  of  hurl- 
ing them  down  from  the  Tarpeian  Rock.  In  Act  V, 
the  scenes  of  the  original  in  which  Menenius  appears 
are  excised.  Aufidius  and  his  officers  begin  the  act; 
soon  Coriolanus  enters  and  then  Volumnia  and  the 
other  women.  Volumnia  draws  a  dagger  and  threat- 
ens, but  does  not  actually  attempt,  to  stab  herself. 
W'hen  the  women  have  gone  out,  Coriolanus  fights 
with  Aufidius  and  kills  him.  The  Volscians  then 
mortally  wound  Coriolanus,  who  does  not  die,  how- 
ever, until  after  his  mother  and  wife  reenter.  The 
play  is  concluded  by  a  speech  made  by  Cominius. 

Fully  half  the  play  is  Dennis's  and  the  Shake- 
spearean portion  is  altered  for  the  worse,  so  that  the 
whole  is  a  bad  mangling  of  the  tragedy.  The  change 
in  the  conclusion  in  the  case  of  Aufidius  is,  as  with 
Tate,  to  satisfy  poetical  justice  by  having  him  die. 
The  tribunes  Sicinius  and  Brutus  are  also  killed  off 
for  the  same  reason.  Again  we  see  what  havoc  the 
application  of  an  artificial  notion  can  work  with  a 
play  of  Shakespeare's.  Dennis  has  but  stultified  him- 
self by  attempting  to  improve  Shakespeare,  the  ab- 
sence of  the  superior  enlightenment  and  knowledge  of 
dramatic  art  he  believed  himself  to  possess  being 
amply  demonstrated  by  his  performance  in  this  in- 
stance, as  it  had  been  also  in  the  case  of  his  revision  of 
"  The  Meriy  Wives  of  Windsor." 

The  poet  James  Thomson   in    1747   finished  a 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  125 

tragedy  of  "  Coriolanus,"  which  is  entirely  indepen- 
dent of  Shakespeare's  play,  a  different  source  having 
been  followed.  His  play,  which  was  not  acted  and 
printed  until  1749,  the  year  after  his  death,  is  written 
in  a  cold  classical  manner  and,  indeed,  is  one  of  those 
tragedies  in  which,  to  use  Doctor  Johnson's  phrase, 
"  Declamation  roared,  whilst  Passion  slept."  It 
would  not  be  mentioned  here  but  for  its  effect  on 
later  alterations  of  Shakespeare's  play. 

On  December  10,  1754,  was  acted  at  Covent 
Garden,  a  version  of  "  Coriolanus  "  made  by  amal- 
gamating Shakespeare  with  Thomson.  It  had  pre- 
viously been  performed  at  Dublin  and  it  is  probable 
that  it  was  compiled  by  the  elder  Sheridan,  though 
It  was  published  anonymously.  A  subtitle,  "  The 
Roman  Matron,"  was  added.  An  examination  of  the 
play  proves  it  to  be  rather  a  version  of  Thomson 
with  additions  from  Shakespeare  than  an  alteration 
of  the  latter's  drama.  It  may  be  of  interest  to  see 
how  the  combination  of  the  two  plays  has  been 
effected. 

The  First  Act  of  Shakespeare's  play  is  omitted, 
with  the  exception  of  the  scene  between  Coriolanus's 
mother  and  wife,  to  whom  the  compiler  gives  the 
names  he  found  in  Thomson,  who,  following  his 
sources,  made  the  mother  Veturia  and  the  wife 
Volumnia.  The  First  Act  of  the  new  play  is  this 
scene  and  Shakespeare's  Second  Act.  Act  II  is 
Shakespeare's  Third  Act  with  some  of  Coriolanus's 
most  effective  speeches  discarded,  as  in  Dennis.  Act 
III  consists  of  Thomson's  First  Act  with  additions 
from  his  Second  Act.  Act  IV  is  all  Thomson,  except 
the  second  scene  which  is  composed  of  parts  of  three 
scenes  from  Shakespeare  with  additional  lines  about 
hurling  the  tribunes  from  the  Tarpeian  Rock  (again 


126      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

an  indebtedness  to  Dennis).     The  Fifth  Act  is,  save 
about  twenty  lines  from  Shakespeare,  Thomson's. 

If  the  play  be  regarded  as  an  alteration  of  Shake- 
speare it  is  a  very  bad  one,  for  many  fine  scenes  have 
been  omitted  to  make  room  for  dull  ones  from  Thom- 
son. Compiling  a  play  from  two  authors  is  an  ex- 
ecrable practice  and  unfair  to  both,  as  justice  can  be 
done  to  neither.  In  this  case,  the  jumbling  of  two 
plays  so  entirely  different  in  style  and  conception  has 
produced  a  very  curious  piece  of  patchwork. 

Again,  J.  P.  Kemble,  whose  great  part  was  Cor- 
iolanus,  made  an  alteration,  which  was  acted  at  Drury 
Lane  in  1789.  What  might  have  been  a  legitimate 
and  judicious  abridgment  and  adaptation  of  Shake- 
speare's play  is  spoiled  by  borrowing  from  Thom- 
son in  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  Acts.  In  the  Fourth 
Act  especially,  there  is  certainly  no  necessity  for  a 
resort  to  such  a  practice,  as  Shakespeare  has  provided 
an  abundance  of  material.  As  it  is,  five  whole  scenes 
are  rejected  in  favor  of  inferior  matter  from 
Thomson.  In  the  Fifth  Act,  the  action  and  dialogue 
are  more  Thomson's  than  Shakespeare's.  ^  The 
latter's  conclusion  being  a  little  lame,  Kemble  saw 
fit  to  attempt  to  improve  it  by  introducing  the 
quarrel  scene  between  Coriolanus  and  Aufidius  from 
Thomson.  Granting  that  he  has  accomplished  his 
object,  one  cannot  but  wish  that  he  had  not  known 
Thomson's  play,  or,  instead  of  resorting  to  it  had 
confined  himself  to  Shakespeare.  The  same  judic- 
iousness he  had  exhibited  in  revising  the  first  three 
acts  would  probably,  if  applied  in  treating  the  last 
two,  have  produced  a  definitive  acting  version  of 
Shakespeare's  play. 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  127 

Titus  Andronictis 

An  alteration  of  this  partly  Shakespearean  trag- 
edy of  blood  was  given  at  the  Theatre  Royal  in  167S. 
It  was  by  the  dramatist  Edward  Ravenscroft,  who 
published  It  nine  years  later. 

As  to  plot,  Ravenscroft's  revision  does  not 
differ  in  important  respects  from  the  original.  A 
good  deal,  however,  is  omitted,  and  there  are  some 
transpositions,  not  in  every  case  bad,  and  also  con- 
siderable additions.  These  last,  which  mainly  take 
the  direction  of  adding  to  the  gruesomeness  of  a  play 
already  nauseously  bloody,  are  interesting  as  showing 
that  the  representation  of  physical  horrors  to  an 
extent  which  would  not  be  tolerated  by  an  audience 
of  our  day,  was  apparently  pleasurable  to  the  play- 
goers of  the  Restoration  period.  Indeed,  Ravens- 
croft tells  us  that  his  play  was  successful. 

To  what  extremes  in  this  respect  the  alterer  went, 
will  appear  when  we  learn  that  every  dish  served  up 
to  the  Emperor  and  Tamora  contains  parts  of  the 
hearts  and  tongues  of  the  Queen's  sons  and  their 
blood  is  mingled  with  all  the  wine  drunk;  that 
Tamora  stabs  her  child  by  the  Moor;  that  the  latter, 
In  a  burst  of  admiration  for  his  paramour's  tran- 
scendent act  of  iniquity  and  in  emulation  of  her  fiend- 
ishness,  offers  to  eat  the  dead  child;  and  finally  that 
this  most  detestable  of  villains  Is  tortured  on  the  rack 
and  burned  to  death  before  the  audience. 

Ravenscroft  himself  boasts  of  his  "  improve- 
ments." "  Compare  the  old  play  with  this,"  he  says, 
with  no  little  exaggeration,  in  his  preface,  "  you'll  find 
that  none  in  all  that  author's  works  ever  received 
greater  alterations  and  additions,  the  language  not 
only  refined,  but  many  scenes  entirely  new,  besides 


128      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

most  of  the  principal  characters  heightened,  and  the 
plot  much  increased."  Lost  in  wonder  that  scenes  of 
such  horror,  which  are  revolting  even  to  read  about, 
could  be  thus  spoken  of,  we  feel  that  we  can  say 
nothing  further  than  that  we  dissent  most  heartily 
from  any  such  favorable  opinion  of  this  alteration  as 
that  of  Its  not  too  modest  maker. 

Romeo  and  Juliet 

This  "Song  of  Songs  of  Romantic  Passion" 
(Gollancz)  was  subjected  In  the  period  of  which  we 
are  treating  to  a  varied  fate.  It  had  been  revived  as 
early  as  March,  1662,  and  was  one  of  the  first  plays 
to  be  modified.  Downes  says :  "  This  play  was,  after 
some  time,  altered  by  James  Howard  so  as  to  pre- 
serve Romeo  and  Juliet  alive  and  to  end  happily. 
It  was  played  alternately  as  a  tragedy  one  day  and  as 
a  tragi-comedy  another,  for  several  times  together." 
What  further  changes,  besides  that  of  th£  catastro- 
phe, were  made  is  not  known.  The  playbill  gives  as 
one  of  the  characters  Count  Paris's  wife,  wlio  must 
have  been  Introduced  In  some  way  in  the  play  as 
altered. 

Here  we  have  probably  the  first  application  to 
Shakespeare  of  the  principle  of  poetical  justice,  the 
lack  of  truth  of  which  to  nature  and  experience  Is  so 
evident  to  anyone  not  blinded  by  preconceived  false 
theories  of  art.  This  mistaken  notion  and  Its  per- 
nicious effect  on  Shakespeare's  plays  have  already 
been  discussed.  In  this  case,  much  as  human  nature 
impels  us  to  wish  for  the  happiness  of  the  lovers,  we 
are  aware  that,  as  Is  so  often  the  case  In  real  life, 
such  violence  of  passion  cannot  but  have  a  tragic 
outcome,  and,  further,  that  their  lives  are  a  necessary 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  129 

sacrifice  to  bring  about  the  end  of  the  deadly  civil 
feud  in  which  they  are  so  hopelessly  involved. 

Otway's  "  Caius  Marius,"  (1680),  which  is, 
strictly,  not  a  version  of  Shakespeare  at  all,  but  a 
borrowing,  or  rather  a  theft,  from  him,  certainly 
bears  a  highly  curious  relation  to  "  Romeo  and 
Juliet,"  from  which  it  is  in  part  taken. 

That  Otway,  who,  at  his  best,  could  produce  the 
finest  tragedies  of  his  age,  should  stoop  to  commit  such 
a  literary  crime  as  this  play  exhibits  —  he  says  himself 
that  he  has  "  rifled  him  [Shakespeare]  of  half  a 
play"  —  can  be  explained  only  as  due  to  the  exigency 
of  his  pecuniary  affairs.  The  quarrel  between  Marius 
and  Sulla  doubtless  occurred  to  him  as  a  suitable  sub- 
ject for  a  tragedy,  and,  having,  as  usual,  to  write  for 
bread,  he  was  probably  anxious  to  have  his  play  ready 
at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  The  feud  between 
the  houses  of  Montague  and  Capulet  being  familiar  to 
him,  he  evidently.  In  an  evil  moment,  conceived  the 
Idea  of  transferring  its  Incidents  to  the  enmity  be- 
tween the  partisans  of  Marius  and  those  of  Sulla, 
and  of  making  use  also  of  as  much  of  Shakespeare's 
dialogue  as  his  plan  permitted.  "  To  such  low  shifts, 
of  late,"  says  he,  by  way  of  apology,  "  are  poets 
worn." 

In  treating  of  this  strange  hodgepodge  of  Shake- 
speare and  Roman  history,  I  shall  pay  attention  only 
to  the  Shakespearean  portions,  as  being  those  that 
come  within  the  scope  of  my  subject.  As  to  the 
character  of  the  parts  of  the  play  which  are  Otway's 
own,  no  more  need  be  said  than  that  they  follow 
fairly  closely  the  historical  facts. 

Caius  Marius  is  represented  as  having  a  son, 
Marius  Junior,  who  Is  in  love  with  Lavlnia,  daughter 
of  Metellus.     The  last  Is  a  partisan  of  Sulla  and 


I30     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

wishes  his  chief  to  be  his  son-in-law.  This  situation 
affords  opportunity  to  introduce  several  scenes  and 
many  passages  from  "  Romeo  and  Juliet."  The 
greater  part  of  the  Nurse's  character  is  retained  and 
Sulpitius  uses  some  of  Mercutio's  speeches. 

The  First  Act  is  almost  all  Otway's.  A  mangled 
form  of  the  description  of  Queen  Mab  is  spoken  by 
Sulpitius.  In  the  Second  Act,  Metellus  expresses  to 
Lavinia  his  desire  that  she  should  be  married,  as 
Lady  Capulet  does  to  Juliet;  most  of  the  Nurse's 
lines  appear,  but  in  prose;  and  Metellus  speaks  some 
of  Capulet's  lines  in  III,  5,  of  "Romeo  and  Juliet." 
Sulpitius  conjures  for  Marius  Junior,  as  Mercutio  for 
Romeo  in  Shakespeare,  and  then  follows  the  garden 
scene  between  Marius  Junior  and  Lavinia,  most  of 
the  lines  being  taken  from  Shakespeare.  The  Third 
Act  includes  considerable  of  "  Romeo  and  Juliet," 
Lavinia's  nurse  comes  to  young  Marius  and  is  quizzed 
by  Sulpitius.  Lavinia  speaks  Juliet's  soliloquy  in  III, 
2,  and  then  comes  a  scene  between  her  and  the  Nurse 
somewhat  as  in  Shakespeare's  II,  5.  In  the  Fourth 
Act,  about  twenty  lines  of  Shakespeare's  111,^5,  are 
introduced  in  the  parting  scene  between  Marius 
Junior  and  Lavinia;  the  Priest  of  Hymen  gives  her 
a  sleeping  potion ;  she  speaks  some  lines  from  IV,  i ; 
and,  after  the  priest  goes  out,  Juliet's  soliloquy  in 
IV,  3.  Shakespeare  is  again  laid  under  a  heavy  con- 
tribution in  Otway's  last  act.  The  Nurse  discovers 
Lavinia  apparently  dead,  Marius  Junior  hears  of  her 
death,  soliloquizes  as  in  Shakespeare,  and  buys  poison 
of  an  apothecary.  At  the  tomb  young  Marius  kills 
the  priest,  not  knowing  who  he  is,  and  drinks  the 
poison,  but  before  he  dies  Lavinia  awakes.  She  later 
kills  herself,  and  the  play  ends  with  some  lines,  partly 
Mercutio's,  spoken  by  Sulpitius. 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  131 

From  this  brief  account  of  the  relation  of  Otway's 
play  to  Shakespeare's,  it  will  be  seen  that  Otway 
speaks  truly  when  he  declares  he  has  pilfered  half  a 
play.  He  makes  some  changes,  in  the  way  of  abridg- 
ment, in  the  passages  he  steals,  and  to  some  of  the 
scenes  he  follows  he  adds  considerable  of  his  own. 

It  is  not  worth  while  to  waste  any  time  or  words 
upon  such  a  contemptible  piece  of  thieving  as  this. 
It  would  seem  as  if  Otway  might  have  found  material 
enough  for  a  play  without  resorting  to  such  an  ex- 
pedient. The  only  redeeming  feature  of  it  all  is  that 
he  had  sufficient  good  sense  not  to  alter  greatly  what 
he  stole,  but  this  scarcely  makes  his  sin  the  less.  His 
main  change,  the  restoration  of  Lavinia  to  conscious- 
ness before  Marius  Junior  dies,  is  pronounced  by 
Genest  to  be  an  improvement,  and  this  device  is  re- 
tained, to  anticipate  a  little,  in  Theophilus  Gibber's 
version  and  in  Garrick's  and  the  revision  of  the  latter 
by  Kemble.  Whether  it  heightens  the  pathos  of  the 
situation  or  not  is  a  debatable  question.  It  may  make 
it  a  little  more  tragic,  but  it  seems  almost  too  much 
piling  on  of  agony  to  have  Romeo  discover  that  he 
has  poisoned  himself  unnecessarily. 

Theophilus  Gibber's  version  of  "  Romeo  and 
Juliet "  was  performed  at  the  Haymarket  Theatre 
in  1744.  The  chief  departure  from  the  original  is 
in  the  borrowing  of  ideas,  lines,  and  passages  from 
Otway's  "  Gaius  Marius,"  an  action  which  is  not  al- 
together surprising  as  that  tragedy  had  been  fre- 
quently acted. 

In  the  First  Act,  Gibber  follows  Shakespeare 
fairly  closely,  but  a  few  hints  and  lines  are  borrowed 
from  Otway  and  there  is  no  mention  of  Rosaline. 
Act  II  has  about  eight  lines  from  Otway.  The  de- 
scription of  Queen  Mab  is  put  in  this  act.     In  the 


132      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

Third  Act,  which  Is  not  materially  altered,  about  nine 
lines  are  taken  from  Valentine's  soliloquy,  when  he 
Is  banished  by  the  Duke,  in  "  Two  Gentlemen  of  Ve- 
rona." There  are  no  changes  of  importance  in  the 
Fourth  Act.  Some  scenes  are  abridged,  between 
twenty  and  thirty  lines  are  Introduced  from  Otway, 
and  a  little  of  Gibber's  own  composition  is  added  to 
Juliet's  first  soliloquy.  In  Act  V,  Gibber  follows  Ot- 
way In  making  Juliet  wake  before  Romeo  dies,  and 
Is  Indebted  to  his  predecessor  for  considerable  of  the 
dialogue. 

Gibber  deserves  credit  for  having  drawn  the  at- 
tention of  playgoers  to  a  tragedy  of  Shakespeare's 
that  had  not  been  acted  for  eighty  years,  and  a  nega- 
tive sort  of  merit  is  his  for  refraining,  to  the  extent 
that  he  does,  from  tampering  with  the  plot.  But  this 
is  overbalanced  to  his  discredit  by  his  adulteration  of 
Shakespeare's  gold  with  the  base  metal  of  Otway,  by 
which  process  he  has  put  himself  In  the  number  of 
that  contemptible  herd  of  literary  cobblers  who  have 
stultified  themselves  by  destroying  in  this  way  the 
organism  of  an  author.  We  have  the  right  to  demand 
of  a  reviser  that,  at  least,  he  give  us  Shakespeare  and 
not  Shakespeare  mingled  with  the  dross  of  his  In- 
feriors. 

Garrlck's  version,  later  slightly  revised  by  Kem- 
ble,  was  first  acted  at  Drury  Lane,  November  29, 
1748.  This  adaptation  does  Garrick  no  credit,  but 
rather  considerable  discredit.  Among  the  many 
minor  changes  may  be  mentioned  that  of  the  age  of 
Juliet  from  fourteen  to  eighteen,  the  removal  In  many 
cases  of  the  rime,  and  the  addition  of  a  line  or  two 
from  Gongreve's  "  Mourning  Bride."  As  In  Gibber, 
there  Is  no  reference  to  Rosaline,  Romeo  being  rep- 
resented at  first  as  having  already  seen  Juliet.     This 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  133 

necessitates  considerable  alteration  and  is  a  bad 
change,  as  it  removes  one  of  the  causes  of  Romeo's 
misfortunes,  his  desertion  of  his  earlier  love.  The 
fifth  scene  of  Act  III,  with  its  beautiful  poetry,  is,  to 
our  amazement,  discarded.  The  first  scene  of  Act 
V  is  the  funeral  of  Juliet,  consisting  of  a  dirge  (air 
and  chorus)  with  no  dialogue,  and  is  an  unnecessary, 
unwelcome,  and  rather  contemptible  addition.  In 
the  last  scene,  Juliet  wakes,  as  in  Otway  and  Cibber, 
before  Romeo  dies. 

From  the  preface  to  Charles  Marsh's  "  Cym- 
beline  "  as  republished  in  1762,  it  appears  that  he  also 
revised  "  Romeo  and  Juliet."  The  elder  Sheridan 
is  said  to  have  made  an  alteration  for  representation 
at  Dublin,  and  John  Lee  one  for  the  Edinburgh 
theatre.  Nothing  further,  however,  is  known  of  any 
of  these  three. 

Tim  on  of  Athens 

The  literary  fortunes  of  this  play  after  the  Res- 
toration were  varied,  for  it  was  several  times  altered, 
the  changes  being  in  the  direction  of  a  complication 
of  the  plot  through  the  addition  of  feminine  char- 
acters. The  first  was  made  in  1678  by  Thomas  Shad- 
well,  the  Mac  Flecknoe  and  Og  of  Dryden's  satire, 
whom  we  have  met  before  as  the  maker  of  "The 
Tempest"  into  an  opera.  Shadwell's  version  had  a 
dedication  to  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  in  the  course 
of  which  he  says:  "It  has  the  inimitable  hand  of 
Shakespeare  in  it,  which  never  made  more  masterly 
strokes  than  in  this.  Yet  I  can  truly  say,  I  have  made 
it  into  a  play."  The  prologue  contains  the  same 
modest  declaration.  We  shall  learn,  therefore,  from 
a  description  of  this  version  what  was  that  indispens- 


134      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

able  requisite  for  a  play  which  Shakespeare  had  failed 
to  provide. 

There  are  a  number  of  changes  and  additions  in 
the  dramatis  personam.  The  lords  are  given  Greek 
names;  Flavius  is  called  Demetrius,  and  Lucilius,  Di- 
philus;  Ventidius  is  omitted,  but  is  mentioned  in  the 
play  as  Lampridius;  a  musician  is  added  to  the  num- 
ber of  those  living  on  the  liberality  of  Timon;  and  — 
here  we  get  a  hint  of  the  nature  of  the  process  of 
making  Shakespeare's  "Timon"  a  play  —  there  are 
introduced  Evandra,  a  mistress  whom  Timon  has 
abandoned,  but  who  is  faithful  to  him  to  the  end, 
and  Melissa,  a  woman  whom  he  is  about  to  marry, 
but  who  deserts  him  in  adversity.  The  part  of  Ape- 
mantus  is  enlarged  as  is  also  that  of  Timon's  steward. 

The  First  Act  opens  with  a  scene,  at  first  between 
Demetrius  and  the  poet,  but  soon  with  the  musician 
and  others  participating.  In  this  there  are  only  a 
few  lines  from  Shakespeare.  After  Timon  enters,  a 
good  deal  of  the  original  is  used,  but  Apemantus  has 
much  more  to  say  (his  speeches  are  put  in  verse)  and 
Nicias,  father  of  Melissa,  is  introduced,  hjf  and 
Timon  conversing  about  the  latter's  approaching 
marriage  with  Melissa.  The  last  scene  is  a  long  one 
between  Timon  and  Evandra.  She  beseeches  him  not 
to  marry  Melissa,  but  to  be  constant  to  her,  telling 
him  that  marriage  is  a  slavery  from  which  nothing 
but  death  can  free  him  —  the  opinion  of  that  institu- 
tion current  in  court  circles  in  the  time  of  Shadwell. 
Timon  professes  regard  for  her,  but  declares  he  can- 
not live  without  Melissa. 

The  first  scene  of  Act  II  is  a  dressing-room  scene, 
Melissa  being  in  process  of  adornment  by  her  maid 
Chloe  for  attendance  at  Timon's  masque.  Then  fol- 
lows a  love  scene  between  her  and  Timon,  at  the  end 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  135 

of  which  they  depart  for  the  feast.  The  scene  then 
changes  to  Timon's  house,  where  at  first  Apemantus 
and  the  poet  are  talking.  After  a  while  the  senators 
enter  and  finally  Timon  and  his  lady  love.  Apeman- 
tus again  says  much  more,  most  of  it  in  verse,  than  in 
Shakespeare.  The  banquet  comes  next,  after  which 
a  masque  of  Shadwell's  composition  is  enacted  be- 
fore the  guests.  Evandra,  Chloe,  who  brings  Me- 
lissa a  letter  from  Alcibiades,  and  other  women  enter 
masked  and  witness  the  entertainment.  At  the  con- 
clusion of  the  masque  all  leave  except  Timon  and 
Evandra.  She  tells  Timon  she  cannot  live  without 
him  and  offers  to  stab  herself.  Timon  orders  Di- 
philus  to  take  her  home  and  promises  to  come  to  her. 
Demetrius  comes  in  to  tell  Timon  of  the  loss  of  his 
wealth,  but  the  latter  refuses  to  listen  to  anything 
about  business. 

The  Third  Act  opens  with  Demetrius's  informing 
Timon  of  his  bankruptcy  as  in  Shakespeare's  II,  2, 
and  with  the  dispatching  of  the  servants  to  the  sev- 
eral lords.  Then  follows  a  scene  in  which  Apeman- 
tus in  the  porch  of  the  Stoics  is  speaking  to  the  Sena- 
tors and  people,  not  Stoic  but  Cynic  doctrine,  as  he 
rails  at  everything.  Timon's  servants  enter  and  are 
turned  off  by  those  to  whom  they  had  been  sent.  In 
the  next  scene,  Melissa  tells  Chloe  not  to  admit  any- 
one from  Timon.  Alcibiades  comes  in  in  disguise, 
pulls  off  his  mask,  and  a  love  scene  ensues  between 
Melissa  and  him.  Then  Timon  is  attacked  by  his 
creditors,  slighted  by  his  former  friends,  and  even 
by  his  servant  Diphilus  and  Melissa,  who  passes  by. 
Evandra,  however,  consoles  him.  The  next  scene  is 
the  false  banquet,  but,  in  Shadwell,  toads  and  snakes 
are  substituted  for  the  warm  water  of  the  original. 

The  Fourth  Act  begins  as  in  Shakespeare  with 


136      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

Timon's  soliloquy,  but  Shadwell  has  somewhat  al- 
tered it.  The  fifth  scene  of  Act  III  (Alcibiades  and 
the  Senate),  also  with  alterations,  comes  next.  The 
succeeding  scene  opens  with  Timon's  soliloquy  in 
IV,  3  (of  course  altered  and  for  the  worse) .  Evan- 
dra  then  appears  and  is  at  first  repulsed  by  Timon 
who  finally,  however,  receives  her  and  shows  her  his 
new-found  wealth.  On  Apemantus's  approach  she 
retires  to  the  cave.  The  scene  between  that  worthy 
and  Timon  is  somewhat  abridged.  The  parts  of  the 
thieves  and  of  Flavins  (Demetrius) ,  who  in  Shadwell 
has  deserted  Timon,  are  discarded.  A  part  of  V,  i, 
then  follows,  the  poet  and  painter  entering  to  Timon. 
Melissa,  who  has  heard  that  Timon  has  found  an 
abundance  of  gold,  comes  and  seeks  reconcilement, 
but  he  rejects  her  and  professes  his  attachment  to 
Evandra. 

In  Act  V,  Timon  and  Evandra  have  the  first 
scene.  He  speaks  of  his  death  and  she  declares  she 
will  not  survive  him.  The  scene  with  the  Senators, 
altered  from  V,  i,  ensues.  The  next  scene  is  that 
between  Alcibiades  and  the  courtesans,  Shakespeare's 
IV,  3.  Then  the  Senators  surrender  to  Alcibiades 
(Shakespeare's  V,  4,  much  altered).  Timon  dies  in 
the  next  scene  and  Evandra  stabs  herself.  Melissa 
is  rejected  by  Alcibiades,  and  Apemantus  is  dragged 
in.  He  rails  at  Alcibiades,  but  is  spared  by  the  great 
soldier  because  he  is  a  friend  of  Socrates.  The  play 
closes  with  an  harangue  by  Alcibiades  to  the  Senators, 
who  enter  with  halters  on  their  necks,  and  a  lament 
over  the  death  of  Timon. 

Now,  we  know  what  is  necessary  to  constitute  a 
play,  namely,  the  treatment  of  the  passion  of  love. 
The  development  of  the  story  of  Timon's  change 
from  prodigality  to  misanthropy  was  not,  in  the  view 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  137 

of  the  critics  and  dramatists  of  Shadwell's  day,  a  suffi- 
cient motif  for  a  play.  To  their  Frenchified  taste 
there  must  be  love  intrigue  or  there  was  no  play. 
Shakespeare's  play  had  practically  no  female  char- 
acters and  hence  fell  far  short  of  being  a  real  drama. 
This  thrusting  of  amorous  intrigues  into  Shake- 
speare's plays  was,  as  we  have  seen,  one  of  the  lead- 
ing principles  of  alteration,  affecting  especially  the 
histories.  As  I  have  already  sufficiently  discussed  the 
nature  of  this  principle  and  the  effect  of  its  application 
to  Shakespeare's  plays,  nothing  further  in  this  direc- 
tion is  called  for  here.  That  it  did  not  improve  this 
play  is  self-evident. 

The  many  minor  additions  and  changes  that 
Shadwell  made  are  in  general  for  the  worse.  The 
character  of  Apemantus  has  not  been  heightened  by 
the  extensive  additions  to  it,  and  the  part  of  Flavius 
(Shadwell's  Demetrius)  has  been  spoiled  by  making 
him  faithless.  The  scenes  in  which  the  women  ap- 
pear, as  independent  matter,  are  not  wholly  without 
power,  for  Shadwell  was  a  better  dramatist  than  Dry- 
den's  scurrilous  satire  would  lead  us  to  think.  As  a 
revision  of  Shakespeare,  however,  this  play  is  a  fail- 
ure, but  one  may  say  in  its  favor  that  it  is  not  so  bad 
as  some  manufactured  by  greater  names. 

In  1768  was  published  "  Timon  of  Athens"  as 
altered  from  Shakespeare  and  Shadwell  by  James 
Love  (whose  real  name  was  Dance),  an  actor  and 
author  of  no  high  degree  of  merit.  Love's  version 
had  been  acted  at  Richmond.  The  following  is  an 
account  of  the  play,  condensed  from  Genest. 

Act  I  differs  but  little  from  Shakespeare;  a  song 
from  Shadwell  is  introduced  in  the  banquet  scene. 
Act  II  is  mostly  from  Shakespeare,  but  the  scene  in 
which  Timon  is  dunned  is  omitted,  and  one  between 


138      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

Timon  and  Evandra,  from  Shadwell,  is  substituted. 
Shadwell's  Melissa  is  omitted,  but  a  good  deal  is  said 
about  her.  The  first  two  scenes  of  Shakespeare's 
Third  Act  are  put  in  this  act.  The  course  of  Act  III 
is  as  follows:  first  come  Shakespeare's  III,  3,  and  III, 
4;  then  another  scene  between  Timon  and  Evandra 
from  Shadwell;  and  finally  the  Senate  scene  and  ban- 
quet of  warm  water.  Act  IV  differs  but  little  from 
Shakespeare,  except  that  Evandra  appears  and  speaks 
some  of  the  lines  given  to  Flavius  in  Shakespeare. 
Some  dialogue  from  Shadwell  is  also  used.  The  first 
part  of  the  Fifth  Act  follows  Shakespeare.  It  begins 
with  a  soliloquy  by  Timon,  transposed  from  the  scene 
between  him  and  Apemantus.  The  thieves  and  Fla- 
vius are  omitted,  and  then  all,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  lines,  is  Shakespeare,  until  after  Alcibiades  has 
appeared  before  the  walls.  The  scene  between  Timon 
and  Evandra  from  Shadwell  comes  next,  their  deaths, 
however,  not  taking  place  on  the  stage.  The  play  con- 
cludes with  a  short  scene  between  Alcibiades  and  the 
Senators,  which  is  partly  from  Shakespeare  and  partly 
from  Shadwell.  * 

There  is  nothing  here  to  call  for  extended  com- 
ment. Some  little  credit  is  due  Love  for  not  modify- 
ing what  he  took  from  Shakespeare,  for  rather  im- 
proving Shadwell's  part  of  the  play,  and  for  refrain- 
ing almost  entirely  from  adding  anything  of  his  own. 
His  play  is  better  than  Shadwell's  version,  and  Cum- 
berland's, next  to  be  considered,  and  it  is  to  be  re- 
gretted that  the  compiler  did  not  have  the  good  sense 
to  confine  himself  to  Shakespeare. 

At  Drury  Lane,  December  4,  1771,  "Timon  of 
Athens "  was  revived  with  alterations  by  Richard 
Cumberland,  author  of  nearly  fifty  dramas,  of  which 
"  The  West  Indian  "  is  the  best  known,  of  some  inter- 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  139 

esting  memoirs,   and  of  many  miscellaneous  works. 

Cumberland  makes  a  number  of  marked  changes, 
the  first  of  which  is  the  furnishing  of  Timon  with  a 
daughter,  Evanthe,  to  whom  Alcibiades  and  Lucius 
make  love.  This  is  a  very  bad  addition,  for,  as  Davies 
observes,  Timon's  throwing  away  on  sycophants  that 
wealth  which  should  have  been  his  child's  portion  ex- 
tinguishes all  pity  for  him.  This  introduction  of  a 
daughter  to  Timon  causes  most  of  the  changes  Cum- 
berland has  made  in  the  first  four  acts.  Although  he 
sometimes  wisely  abridges,  he  has  discarded  much  of 
the  best  of  the  original  to  make  room  for  scenes  in 
which  she  takes  part.  Lucius's  love  for  Evanthe  cools 
when  he  finds  Timon's  money  is  gone,  but  Alcibiades 
does  not  desert  her. 

When  he  came  to  the  Fifth  Act,  Cumberland 
chose  to  rewrite  it  almost  entirely.  The  Senators 
appear  on  the  walls  and  surrender  the  city  to  Al- 
cibiades, who  promises  to  spare  all  but  his  own  and 
Timon's  enemies.  Evanthe  intercedes  for  the  citi- 
zens. In  the  next  scene,  it  comes  to  light  that  the 
treasure  which  Timon  has  found  had  been  hidden  by 
Lucullus  —  an  instance  of  the  operation  of  poetical 
justice.  Alcibiades'  soldiers  pillage  Lucius's  house, 
—  poetical  justice  again.  The  scene  then  changes 
to  a  wild  country.  Timon,  supported  by  Flavius, 
is  met  by  Evanthe  and  Alcibiades,  who  request  him 
to  return  to  Athens.  Thereupon  Timon  throws  aside 
his  misanthropy,  is  kind  to  his  daughter,  and  gives 
her  to  Alcibiades.  The  play  ends  with  Timon's 
death. 

Cumberland,  by  making  this  decided  change  in 
the  characterization  of  Timon,  has  largely  removed 
the  lesson  of  Shakespeare's  play,  the  purpose  of  which 
is  to  show  the  punishment  which  results  from  lack  of 


140     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

self-restraint,  and  In  general  to  condemn  misanthropy. 
The  debasement  of  Timon  effected  by  giving  such  a 
prodigal  a  daughter  and  thus  making  his  fault  worse, 
has  already  been  Indicated.  Like  Shadwell,  Cumber- 
land has  elevated  the  character  of  Alclblades  by  omit- 
ting the  courtesans  and  by  making  him  a  model  man 
and  lover,  with  a  loss  thereby  of  historical  truth. 
In  one  respect  his  alteration  is  better  than  Shadwell's, 
namely,  In  that  he  makes  little  modification  in  those 
scenes  of  the  original  which  he  retains,  whereas  his 
predecessor  left  very  few  lines  into  which  something 
of  his  own  was  not  thrust.  His  great  fault  is  Iden- 
tical with  Shadwell's,  and  all  other  would-be  Im- 
provers; he  has  discarded  too  much  of  Shakespeare 
to  put  In  too  much  material  of  his  own  composition, 
which  coalesces  badly  with  the  original.  In  his  "  ad- 
vertisement "  he  expresses  the  wish  that  he  could 
have  brought  the  play  upon  the  stage  with  less 
violence  to  its  author.  Had  his  desire  been  sincere 
there  Is  no  reason  why  he  might  not  have  achieved 
it  without  any  very  great  difficulty.  Apparently,  he 
was  unable  to  resist  the  temptation  to  borrow  from 
the  earlier  reviser,  which  his  Imbuement  with  similar 
dramatic  notions  doubtless  made  alluring  to  him.  He 
must  be  reckoned  then  a  particeps  crimlnis  of  the 
other. 

Again,  in  1786,  an  alteration  of  "Timon"  with 
additions  from  Shadwell  was  brought  out.  This  time 
the  compiler  was  Hull,  the  friend  of  Shenstone,  whom 
we  have  met  before  as  an  adapter  of  "  The  Comedy 
of  Errors."  I  have  not  seen  a  copy  of  this.  From 
the  list  of  characters  It  appears  that  Evandra  and 
Melissa  were  borrowed  from  Shadwell. 

The  revision  of  Timon  which  was  acted  at  Drury 
Lane  in  18 16,  although  a  few  lines  from  Cumberland 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  141 

are  introduced  in  the  last  scene,  is  practically  only  a 
stage  version  made  by  omitting  portions,  usually  with 
propriety.  The  adapter  in  this  case  was  the  Hon. 
George  Lamb,  who  was  one  of  the  early  contributors 
to  the  Edinburgh  Review  and  as  such  was  satirized  by 
Byron  (as  he  afterwards  owned,  unjustly)  in  "Eng- 
lish Bards  and  Scotch  Reviewers."  Lamb's  chief 
literary  work  is  a  translation  of  Catullus,  which  was 
savagely  attacked  in  "  Blackwood's  "  by  "  Christo- 
pher North." 


CHAPTER    VIII.    JULIUS    C/ESAR  —  MACBETH 
—  HAMLET  — KING  LEAR  — OTHELLO 

Julius  Casar 

A  RE  VISION  of  this  play  was  printed  in  17 19 
as  it  was  purported  to  have  been  al- 
tered by  D'Avenant  and  Dryden.  There 
is  the  following  note  on  this  in  Genest 
under  "  Covent  Garden,  January  31,  1766:"  "It 
being  generally  known  that  D'Avenant  and  Dryden 
had  joined  in  mangling  Shakespeare's  '  Tempest,' 
some  person  seems  to  have  attributed  the  altera- 
tion of  '  Julius  Ctesar '  to  them  for  that  reason,  and 
that  alone.  It  is,  however,  morally  certain  that 
D'Avenant  never  assisted  in  altering  '  Julius  Csesar,' 
that  being  one  of  the  plays  assigned  to  Killigrew  and 
which  consequently  D'Avenant  could  not  act  at  his 
own  theatre,"  ^ 

I  have  not  found  a  copy  of  this  and,  as  Genest 
gives  no  account  of  it,  probably  the  alterations  were 
slight,  it  being  apparently  only  the  theatre  book  with 
changes  for  the  stage.  The  author  of  the  life  of 
D'Avenant  in  the  "  Dictionary  of  National  Biog- 
raphy," stigmatizes  it  as  "  wretched,"  which  epithet 
seems  unwarrantably  strong,  if  the  above  conclusion 
as  to  its  nature  is  correct. 

There  is  no  better  example  of  the  fatuity  of  at- 
tempting to  circumscribe  the  romantic  drama  by  the 
artificial  rules  of  the  classical  drama,  than  the  revision 
now  to  be  considered,  the  two  tragedies  which  Shef- 
field made  out  of  this  play. 

John  Sheffield,  Earl  of  Mulgrave,  Marquis  of 
142 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  143 

Normandy,  and  Duke  of  Buckinghamshire,  was  a 
man  and  writer  of  no  little  reputation  in  his  day.  He 
was  an  intimate  friend  of,  and  even  a  co-worker  with, 
Dryden,  who  spoke  of  him  as 

"  Sharp-judging  Adriel,  the  Muses'  friend, 
Himself  a  muse," 

and  who  dedicated  to  him  his  "  Auranzebe  "  and  his 
translation  of  the  ^neid.  He  was  also  a  friend  of 
Pope,  who  "  at  the  command  of  His  Grace  "  wrote 
two  of  the  choruses  in  the  Duke's  second  play.  Of 
course,  living  in  the  age  that  he  did,  he  would  be  likely 
to  be  a  thoroughgoing  classicist,  and  those  who  have 
read  his  verse  "Essay  on  Poetry"  will  not  need  to 
be  told  that  he  was  in  accord  with  his  time.  This 
being  the  case,  one  can  readily  anticipate  that,  when 
he  set  to  work  to  alter  "Julius  Ceesar,"  he  would 
have  the  intention  of  making  it  "  regular  "  if  possible, 
and  such  we  find  to  be  the  spirit  in  which  his  revision 
was  made. 

His  alterations  were  never  acted,  but  were  pub- 
lished by  his  duchess  in  1722,  after  his  death.  In 
order  to  observe  the  unities  and  to  bring  Shake- 
speare's play  into  harmony  with  the  classical  form, 
he  divided  it,  as  has  been  said,  into  two  plays,  which 
he  called  "  The  Tragedy  of  Julius  Caesar  "  and  "  The 
Death  of  Marcus  Brutus,"  and  furnished  each  with 
a  prologue  and  choruses.  In  the  prologue  to  the  first 
play,  he  says: 

"  Hope  to  mend  Shakespeare !  or  to  match  his  style ! 
'Tis  such  a  jest  would  make  a  stoic  smile. 
Too  fond  of  fame,  our  poet  soars  too  high  ; 
Yet  freely  owns  he  wants  the  wings  to  fly; 
That  he  confesses  while  he  does  the  fault." 


144     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

If  such  was  his  real  opinion  we  wonder  at  his  vanity 
in  undertaking  this  well-nigh  impossible  task.  Shef- 
field is  so  solicitous  lest  anyone  should  think  he  neg- 
lects to  observe  the  unity  of  time,  that  he  is  careful 
to  state  that  the  play  begins  the  day  before  Caesar's 
death  and  ends  within  an  hour  after  it. 

The  alterations  in  the  plot  of  the  first  play  are 
slight,  but  the  diction  is  much  changed  and  there  is  a 
good  deal  of  Sheffield's  own  poetry.  In  the  First 
Act,  all  the  low  comedy  is  omitted  and  the  offering 
of  the  crown  is  made  a  part  of  the  action.  In  Act  II, 
the  scene  between  Brutus  and  Portia  is  transformed 
into  an  insipid  love  dialogue.  Calpurnia  is  omitted 
in  Act  III,  the  ill  omens  being  reported  by  the  priests. 
Act  IV  is  without  change  as  to  action.  Brutus's  ad- 
dress is  turned  into  blank  verse,  and  the  Fifth  Act  ends 
with  Antony's  address,  the  opening  lines  of  which  are 
worth  quoting  as  an  example  of  Sheffield's  improve- 
ment upon  Shakespeare: 

"  Friends,  countrymen,  and  Romans,  hear  me;gently; 
I  come  to  bury  C^sar,  not  to  praise  him. 
Lo  here  the  fatal  end  of  all  his  glory: 
The  evil  that  men  do,  lives  after  them; 
The  good  is  often  bury'd  in  their  graves; 
So  let  it  be  with  Csesar.     Noble  Brutus 
Has  told  you  Caesar  was  ambitious: 
If  he  was  so,  then  he  was  much  to  blame; 
And  he  has  dearly  paid  for  his  offense. 
I  come  to  do  my  duty  to  dead  Cssar." 

The  second  tragedy,  having  but  two  acts  of  the 
original  to  draw  upon,  called  for  much  additional 
material.  Accordingly,  the  Duke  introduces  several 
new  characters,  as  Theodotus,  a  philosopher;  Dola- 
bella;  Varius,  a  young  Roman  bled  at  Athens;  and 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  145 

Junia,  wife  of  Casslus  and  sister  of  Brutus.  In  reality, 
an  almost  entirely  new  play  is  manufactured,  as  the 
first  three  acts  are  entirely  Sheffield's,  and  althouh  the 
substance  of  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  Acts  is  Shake- 
speare's, the  words  are  the  Duke's.  Many  variations 
are  made  even  when  the  scenes  are  founded  on  Shake- 
speare. For  instance,  instead  of  Pindarus  unwillingly 
holding  the  sword  for  Cassius  to  run  upon,  the  ser- 
vant kills  himself,  after  which  his  master,  encouraged 
by  his  example,  or  reproached  by  it,  stabs  himself. 
This  is  precisely  as  in  the  case  of  Eros  and  Antony, 
in  "  Antony  and  Cleopatra,"  which  probably  sug- 
gested the  change  here. 

The  scene  lies  at  Athens  in  the  first  three  acts  and 
near  Philippi  in  the  last  two.  The  Duke  apologizes 
for  thus  violating  the  unity  of  place : 

"  Our  scene  is  Athens  ; 
But  here  our  author  besides  other  faults 
Of  ill  expressions  and  of  vulgar  thoughts 
Commits  one  crime  that  needs  an  act  of  grace 
And  breaks  the  law  of  unity  of  place." 

Truly  an  audacious  thing  to  do !  The  unity  of  time, 
however,  we  are  informed  has  been  preserved,  for 
the  play  begins  the  day  before  the  battle  of  Philippi 
and  ends  with  that  event.  Here  the  Duke's  solicitude 
has  made  him  absurdly  inconsistent,  for  the  move- 
ments could  not  be  made  from  Athens  to  Philippi  in 
the  time,  nor  could  Cassius  get  back  in  twenty-four 
hours  from  Sardis,  where  Junia  says  he  has  gone. 
Probably  His  Grace  did  not  look  into  the  geography 
of  his  scene,  which  is  unpardonable  in  so  great  a 
stickler  for  correctness. 

This  is  the  only  attempt  to  give  a  play  of  Shake- 
speare's a  strictly  classical  form,  and  no  reader  of  the 


146     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS  • 

Duke's  plays  will  have  any  doubt  as  to  the  superiority 
of  Shakespeare's  treatment.  The  best  excuse  for 
Sheffield's  two  plays  lies  in  Shakespeare's  duality  of 
heroes.  But  Brutus  is  the  one  upon  whom  Shake- 
speare meant  to  fix  the  greatest  attention,  and  his  pur- 
pose is  to  show  how  Brutus's  misfortunes  come  as  the 
result  of  his  one  error  in  assassinating  Caesar,  doing 
evil  that  good  may  come.  Shakespeare's  reason  for 
not  ending  his  play  with  the  murder  of  Cassar  appears 
in  the  words  of  Brutus  over  Cassius's  body: 

"  O  Julius  Caesar,  thou  art  mighty  yet! 
Thj'  spirit  walks  abroad  and  turns  our  swords 
In  our  own  proper  entrails." 

But  the  critics,  among  them  the  Duke,  did  not  see 
this  in  their  shortsightedness. 

The  battle  between  the  classicists  and  the  roman- 
ticists over  the  unities  has  been  fought  and  the  victory 
lies  with  the  latter,  so  there  is  no  necessity  for  a  dis- 
cussion of  them  here.  Suffice  it  to  say  that^the  at- 
tempt to  make  over  Shakespeare's  play  so  as  to 
conform  to  them  has  resulted  in  a  very  bad  alteration 
of  it.  Besides  his  violence  to  the  construction  of  the 
play,  Sheffield  has,  in  addition,  so  spoiled  the  verse, 
as  the  specimen  of  his  work  given  abundantly  testifies, 
that  we  can  have  nothing  but  contempt  for  his  mis- 
guided efforts. 

Macbeth 

One  of  the  most  interesting  and  important  alter- 
ations was  that  of  "  Macbeth,"  which  long  kept  the 
stage  and  which,  although  finally  abandoned,  con- 
tributed not  a  little  to  the  later  acting  copies.  The 
play  had  been  acted  after  the   Restoration  at  the 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  147 

theatre  in  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  pretty  much  as  Shake- 
speare wrote  it.  Furness  speaks  of  a  1673  copy  of 
the  play  different  from  the  D'Avenant  version  of  the 
next  year.  It  is,  for  the  most  part,  a  reprint  of  the 
First  Folio  "  Macbeth,"  save  that  the  witch  scenes 
are  altered,  being  very  similar  to  the  same  scenes  in 
the  1674  version  but  not  coming  in  the  same  places. 
This  was  doubtless  the  play  as  it  was  acted  until  the 
D'Avenant  version  was  put  on,  and,  curiously,  it 
is  very  much  like  the  acting  version  of  the  last  century. 

"Macbeth,"  like  "The  Tempest,"  was,  as  has 
been  noted  before,  one  of  the  plays  selected  to  be 
made  into  a  sort  of  opera  when  it  became  necessary  for 
the  Duke's  Company  to  introduce  a  novelty  to  offset 
the  better  acting  of  the  King's  Company.  Accord- 
ingly, it  was  brought  out  at  Dorset  Garden  with  ma- 
chines for  the  witches,  with  dancing,  and  with  much 
singing.  It  proved  to  be  very  successful  and  in  1674 
was  published  anonymously.  Downes  expressly  at- 
tributes it  to  D'Avenant,  and  the  internal  evidence 
is  strong  for  his  authorship.  To  the  play  was  pre- 
fixed an  argument  taken  verbatim  from  Heylin's 
"  Cosmography." 

The  play  is  considerably  changed  as  to  plot,  etc., 
as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  account  of  the 
marked  departures  from  the  original.  Ross's  name 
appears  in  the  dramatis  persons,  but  all  his  lines  are 
given  to  other  characters.  The  part  of  Seyton,  as 
will  be  seen,  is  curiously  enlarged. 

The  chief  changes  in  the  First  Act  are  the  Intro- 
duction of  Macduff  into  this  act  (he  speaks  the  lines 
given  to  Ross  in  scene  2  and  those  given  to  Ross  and 
Angus  in  scene  3),  and  that  of  Lady  Macduff  into 
scene  5.  This  latter  innovation  is  worthy  of  note. 
She  is  represented  as  visiting  Lady  Macbeth.     That 


148      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

lady,  being  anxious  to  read  her  husband's  letter,  pre- 
vails upon  her  guest  to  retire.  D'Avenant  did  not 
understand  that  the  words  of  the  letter  as  given  by 
Shakespeare  are  only  a  part  of  the  whole  letter,  so  he 
absurdly  says  that  an  earlier  letter  had  brought 
"  some  imperfect  news  "  of  Macbeth's  meeting  with 
the  witches  and  that  "this  perhaps  may  give  more 
full  intelligence."  The  scene  is  thus  changed  to  in- 
troduce a  weak  scene  between  the  ladies  as  part  of  a 
plan  to  enlarge  the  characters  of  Macduff  and  his 
wife. 

In  the  Second  Act,  the  porter  scene  is  omitted  (the 
reason  for  this  has  been  given  earlier)  and  scene  4  is 
between  Lennox  and  Seyton,  who  speak  the  lines  given 
to  Ross  and  "An  Old  Man"  respectively.  Then  a 
long  scene,  entirely  new,  is  added.  Lady  Macduff, 
with  maid  and  servant,  is  on  the  heath  awaiting  her 
lord,  who  soon  comes  in  to  accompany  her  home.  To 
them  enter  the  witches,  who,  after  singing  two  songs 
and  dancing,  make  a  triple  prophecy  to  Macduff  as 
they  had  previously  done  to  Macbeth.  Macdi^ff  and 
his  wife  are  again  introduced  as  in  conversation  after 
having  arrived  at  home.  They  are  agreed  that  Mac- 
beth is  responsible  for  Duncan's  death  and  Macduff 
determines  to  defend  his  country  against  the  tyrant's 
violence.  Yet  again  they  appear  after  the  banquet 
scene,  Lady  Macduff  pleading  with  her  husband  not 
to  go  to  England,  but,  when  news  comes  of  Banquo's 
death,  begging  him  to  fly. 

Seyton  has  the  lines  given  to  "Another  Lord"  in 
scene  6  of  the  original.  The  last  scene  of  this  act  is 
entirely  new.  It  is  a  witch  scene,  partly  D'Avenant's 
but  mostly  a  part  of  a  scene  in  Middleton's  "  Witch  " 
slightly  altered. 

The  witch  scene  in  Act  Fourth  is  amplified  by  a 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  149 

second  borrowing  from  Middleton.  Lennox  takes 
the  place  of  Ross  in  scene  2,  and  Seyton  is  the  mes- 
senger who  comes  in  to  warn  Lady  Macduff  of  the 
approach  of  the  murderers.  Malcolm  and  Macduff 
meet  at  Birnam  Wood  instead  of  in  England.  Then 
there  is  a  new  scene,  first  between  the  ubiquitous 
Seyton  and  Macbeth  and  then  between  the  latter  and 
Lady  Macbeth,  to  whom  appears  the  ghost  of 
Duncan,  which  is  not  seen  by  Macbeth.  Lennox  re- 
ports the  murder  of  Macduff's  family  to  Macduff. 

In  Act  V,  the  Doctor's  hnes  are  given  to  Seyton ; 
scene  2,  participated  in  by  Lennox,  Donalbain,  and 
Fleance,  is  new.  The  latter  two  are  coming  to  aid 
Malcolm.  Scenes  6  and  7  are  run  together  and  some- 
what altered.  Lennox  is  killed  by  Macbeth,  instead 
of  young  Siward,  who  does  not  appear  in  the  play. 
Many  of  the  best  passages  are  omitted  or  mutilated 
and  much  stuff  is  added  in  this  act. 

The  thing  which  strikes  one  most  in  reading  this 
play  is  that  duplication  of  important  scenes  and  char- 
acters which  is  a  characteristic  feature  of  the 
D'Avenant  alterations  and  which  is  consequently 
pretty  good  evidence  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  ver- 
sion before  us.  This  same  feature  is,  as  has  been 
pointed  out  earlier,  found  in  an  incipient  stage  in 
"The  Law  against  Lovers,"  D'Avenant's  hodge- 
podge of  "  Measure  for  Measure "  and  "  Much 
Ado,"  and  again,  and  this  time  carried  to  an  absurd 
extreme,  in  the  version  of  "  The  Tempest  "  which  was 
a  joint  production  of  D'Avenant  and  Dryden,  the 
latter  of  whom,  in  the  preface  to  the  published  play, 
as  we  have  seen,  expressly  attributes  to  D'Avenant 
the  idea  of  duplication. 

This  is  very  inartistic,  though  Dryden  evidently 
had  a  contrary  opinion,  for  he  commends  highly  the 


150     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

employment  of  this  feature  in  the  revised  "Tem- 
pest." Such  repetitions  do  not  make  the  characters, 
as  Dryden  said,  "  more  commend  each  other,"  but 
rather  detract  from  the  effect  by  dividing  the  atten- 
tion which  should  be  given  almost  entirely  to  one 
scene  or  set  of  characters.  The  evident  purpose  here 
is  to  pair  off  Macduff  and  his  wife  against  Macbeth 
and  Lady  Macbeth.  The  former  couple  are  made 
too  prominent  to  be  foils  to  set  off  the  latter;  both 
lose  by  the  change. 

If  Seyton  had  to  do  all  that  D'Avenant  gives  him 
to  do,  we  do  not  wonder  at  his  deserting  to  the 
English. 

The  additional  and  enlarged  witch  scenes  are 
added  in  the  interest  of  the  operatic  feature.  Operatic 
scenes  are  out  of  place  in  a  tragedy  of  this  kind;  it 
has  to  do  with  more  serious  events  than  we  are  likely 
to  connect  with  music  and  dancing.  But  the  prevalent 
opinion  in  D'Avenant's  time  was  very  different,  as 
witness  what  Pepys  has  to  say  under  the  date  of 
January  7,  1667:  "Saw  Macbeth  [probably  jn  the 
form  published  in  1673,  but  perhaps  in  this  version], 
which,  though  I  saw  it  lately,  yet  appears  a  most  ex- 
cellent play  in  all  respects,  but  especially  in  divertisse- 
ment though  it  be  a  deep  tragedy;  which  is  a  strange 
perfection  in  a  tragedy  being  most  proper  here  and 
suitable."  This  appears  to  have  been  the  general 
judgment,  for  the  play  thus  altered  was  very  popular. 

These  new  and  varied  witch  scenes  have  been 
retained  in  the  acting  copies  of  later  times.  Another 
survival  from  D'Avenant  is  the  line  "  Command  they 
make  a  halt  upon  the  heath  "  at  the  opening  of  the 
third  scene  of  Act  I  in  the  stage  versions  of  the  present 
day. 

It  is  evident  that  his  version  was  long  more  cur- 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  151 

rent  or  more  accessible  than  Shakespeare's  play. 
Steele's  quotation  of  lines  from  this  version  In  ap- 
parent preference  to  those  of  Shakespeare  has  been 
mentioned.  The  manner  In  which  the  diction  has 
been  changed  is  more  Irritating  to  a  reader  than  even 
the  changes  in  the  plot.  There  are  not  a  half  dozen 
consecutive  lines  that  have  not  been  subjected  to  un- 
necessary and  arbitrary  change,  all  made  in  the  effort 
to  tone  down  the  style,  to  get  rid  of  the  figurative 
expressions,  and  to  refine  the  language.  A  few  ex- 
amples will  give  a  better  idea  of  the  effects  of  the 
process  than  any  description  however  extended. 
"  Hear  It  not,  Duncan,"  etc.,  becomes 

"  O  Duncan,  hear  it  not,  for  'tis  a  bell 
That  rings  my  coronation  and  thy  knell ;  " 

"  Sleep  that  knits  up  the  ravelled  sleave  of  care  "  Is 
transmuted  Into  "  Sleep  that  locks  up  the  senses  from 
their  care";  and  "the  deep  damnation  of  his  taking 
off  "  is  diluted  Into  "  so  black  a  deed."  Again,  Mac- 
beth's  soliloquy  Is  shortened  and  opens  thus: 

"  If  it  were  well  when  done,  then  it  were  well 
It  were  done  quickly;  if  his  death  might  be 
Without  the  death  of  nature  in  myself, 
And  killing  my  own  rest,  it  would  suffice. 
•     ■  But  deeds  of  this  complexion  still  return 

To  plague  the  doer,  and  destroy  his  peace. 
Yet  let  me  think ;  he's  here  in  double  trust," 

and  so  on.  Many  of  the  changes  are  made  through 
gross  misunderstanding  of  Shakespeare's  meaning 
and  seem  ridiculous  to  us,  but  the  corruptions  of  the 
text  may  be  responsible  for  some  of  them.  Others 
are  In  the  nature  of  more  modern  equivalents  of  ob- 
solete words. 


152      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

On  the  whole,  while  one  would  not  go  so  far  as 
Steevens  and  say  that  "  almost  every  original  beauty 
is  either  awkwardly  disguised  or  arbitrarily  omitted," 
because  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  original  is  re- 
tained, yet  it  must  be  said  that  the  alteration  is  a  most 
atrocious  one,  and  it  is  well  that  it  is  forgotten. 

The  operatic  additions  of  D'Avenant  to  the  witch 
scenes  of  "Macbeth"  and  to  "The  Tempest,"  in- 
duced one  Thomas  Duffet,  a  milliner,  to  ridicule 
the  former  play  in  1674  and  the  latter  in  1675. 
Duffet  wrote  a  farce  "  The  Empress  of  Morocco  " 
against  Settle's  "The  Emperor  of  Morocco,"  and  to 
it  appended  as  an  epilogue,  "  a  new  fancy,  after  the 
old  and  most  surprising  way  of  '  Macbeth,'  per- 
formed with  new  and  costly  machines,  etc."  It  is 
made  up  of  dances  and  coarse  songs  by  Hecate  and 
three  witches.  Again,  a  man  by  the  name  of  Harry 
Rowe  performed  "  Macbeth  "  as  a  puppet  show  at 
York. 

Another  absurd  representation  was  that  of 
"  Macbeth  "  as  a  ballet  d' action  at  the  Royal  Qjrcus, 
Saint  George's  Field,  London.  "  Macbeth "  was 
thus  metamorphosed  by  a  Mr.  J.  C.  Cross,  to  give, 
it  is  said,  an  actor  named  Elliston,  who  could  not, 
because  attached  to  a  minor  theatre,  act  in  the  higher 
characters  of  the  drama,  a  chance  to  exhibit  his  tal- 
ents in  that  direction.  The  full  title  of  this  mon- 
strosity is  "  The  History,  Murders,  Life,  and  Death 
of  Macbeth."  The  music  and  the  witches  were  re- 
tained with  several  portions  of  the  text  for  Macbeth 
to  speak.  There  are  several  new  scenes  introduced, 
one  being  a  bedchamber  scene  in  which  Duncan  is 
murdered,  while  asleep,  by  Macbeth.  The  same 
scene  is  again  shown,  after  the  alarm  has  been  given; 
all  the  principal  characters  come  on;  Macbeth  stabs 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  153 

the  "  sleepy  grooms  ";  and  a  "  picture  of  horror  and 
surprise  "  is  formed  to  end  the  first  act. 

Such  things  as  this  and  the  Shakespeare  travesties 
are  a  disgrace  to  the  stage.  They  serve  to  show  that 
any  real  reverence  for  Shakespeare  is  of  compara- 
tively late  origin. 

John  Lee  made  a  version  of  "  Macbeth,"  which 
was  played  at  Edinburgh  in  1753.  The  editors  of 
the  "  Biographia  Dramatica "  thus  characterize  it: 
"  Language  is  not  strong  enough  to  express  our  con- 
tempt of  Mr.  Lee's  performance.  If  sense,  spirit, 
and  versification  were  ever  discoverable  in  Shake- 
speare's play,  so  sure  has  our  reformer  laid  them  all 
in  ruins."  I  did  not  learn  anything  as  to  the  details 
of  this  revision. 

Hamlet,  Prince  of  Denmark 

Garrick  in  1772  was  so  foolish  as  to  make  an 
alteration  of  Hamlet,  thereby  demonstrating  that  his 
professed  reverence  for  Shakespeare  was  rather  hy- 
pocritical and  that  a  good  actor  may  be  a  very  poor 
playwright.  Garrick's  revision,  which  he  did  not 
venture  to  print,  although  he  at  first  intended  to  do 
so,  seems  to  have  been  undertaken  chiefly  to  free  the 
play  from  features  criticised  by  Voltaire,  who  in  the 
preface  to  his  "  Semiramis  "  had  called  "Hamlet" 
"  a  coarse  and  barbarous  piece,"  and  had  gone  on  to 
point  out  some  of  the  gross  absurdities,  with  which, 
In  his  opinion,  the  play  abounded.  According  to 
Davies,  Garrick  divided  the  acts  differently,  but  made 
no  great  changes  in  the  action  or  dialogue  until  to- 
ward the  end  of  the  play.  The  plotting  scenes  be- 
tween the  King  and  Laertes  to  destroy  Hamlet  were 
entirely  changed  and  Laertes  was  rendered  more  es- 


154      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

timable.  Hamlet,  having  escaped  from  Rosencrantz 
and  Guildenstern,  returned  with  a  firm  resolve  to 
avenge  his  father's  death.  The  gravediggers  and 
Osric  were  rejected  absolutely;  the  fate  of  Ophelia 
was  not  mentioned;  her  funeral  was  omitted;  and 
the  Queen,  instead  of  being  poisoned  on  the  stage, 
was  led  from  her  seat  and  reported  to  be  in  an  insane 
condition,  due  to  her  sense  of  guilt.  When  Hamlet 
attacked  the  King,  the  latter  drew  his  sword,  de- 
fended himself,  and  was  killed  in  the  rencounter. 
Laertes  and  Hamlet  then  died  of  mutual  wounds. 

The  account  given  by  Boaden  in  his  "  Life  of  J. 
P.  Kemble,"  adds  a  little  to  this,  and  differs  from  it 
in  some  respects,  especially  as  to  the  conclusion. 
Among  the  additional  particulars,  we  are  told  that 
Garrick  cut  out  the  voyage  to  England  and  the  execu- 
tion of  Rosencrantz  and  Guildenstern  (he  must  mean 
the  references  to  Hamlet's  artifice  to  get  them  killed 
and  to  the  report  of  their  deserved  fate)  ;  that  all  the 
wisdom  of  the  Prince  is  omitted;  that  Hamlet  bursts 
in  upon  the  King  and  his  court  and  is  reproached  by 
Laertes  for  being  the  cause  of  his  father's  and  his 
sister's  deaths;  that,  when  they  are  both  at  the  height 
of  anger,  the  King  interposes  and  is  stabbed  by  Ham- 
let. The  remainder  of  the  play  is  said  to  have  been 
as  follows:  "The  Queen  rushes  out,  imploring  the 
attendants  to  save  her  from  her  son.  Laertes,  seeing 
treason  and  murder  before  him,  attacks  Hamlet  to 
revenge  his  father,  his  sister,  and  his  King.  He 
wounds  Hamlet  mortally,  and  Horatio  is  on  the 
point  of  making  Laertes  accompany  him  to  the 
shades,  when  the  Prince  commands  him  to  desist,  as- 
suring him  that  it  was  the  hand  of  Heaven,  which 
administered  by  Laertes  '  That  precious  balm  for  all 
his  wounds.' "     We  then  learn  that  the  miserable 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  155 

mother  had  dropped  in  a  trance  before  she  could 
reach  her  chamber  door,  and  Hamlet  implores  for 
her  "  an  hour  of  penitence  ere  madness  end  her."  He 
then  joins  the  hands  of  Laertes  and  Horatio,  and 
commands  them  to  unite  their  virtues  (as  a  coalition 
of  ministers)  to  "calm  the  troubled  land."  The  old 
couplet  as  to  the  bodies  concludes  the  play. 

Whichever  of  these  two  accounts  is  right,  one 
thing  at  least  is  self-evident,  Garriclc  has  sadly  man- 
gled Shakespeare's  play.  We  can  detect  the  applica- 
tion of  some  of  the  dramatic  principles  so  dear  to  the 
classicists.  The  violation  of  the  unities  is  made  some- 
what less  pronounced  through  the  omission  of  young 
Fortinbras  or  at  least  his  return;  the  gravediggers 
disappear  because  their  jocularity  was  regarded  as 
incongruous  with  the  tragic  affairs  amongst  which  it 
is  placed;  the  character  of  Laertes  is  elevated  to  make 
him  such  a  model  of  virtue  as  a  true  hero  should 
be ;  and  Osric  is  removed  perhaps  for  the  same  reason 
as  the  gravediggers,  or  perhaps  because  it  was  re- 
garded as  against  all  rules  to  introduce  a  new  char- 
acter near  the  end  of  a  play.  Garrick,  in  his  anx- 
iety to  get  rid  of  the  gravediggers,  forgot  to  give 
poor  Ophelia  a  Christian  or  any  other  burial,  thus 
showing  his  failure  to  have  a  thorough  command  of 
all  the  action  of  the  play,  as  well  as  thereby  depriving 
us  of  many  of  the  fine  lines  and  passages  of  the  origi- 
nal. Whichever  way  Garrick  made  the  King  meet 
his  death,  Shakespeare  has  handled  the  matter  more 
according  to  the  villain's  desert.  The  Queen's  dying 
behind  the  scenes  was  doubtless  a  concession  to  the 
feeling  that  it  was  not  good  taste  that  a  woman's  vio- 
lent death  should  be  witnessed  by  the  audience.  If 
Laertes  was  left  alive,  it  was  to  take  the  place  of  the 
omitted  Fortinbras  as  the  ruler  of  the  kingdom.    Al- 


156     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

though  it  Is  uncommon  to  bring  on  a  character  at  the 
end  of  a  play,  we  feel  that  Shakespeare  was,  however, 
artistic  in  having  the  affairs  of  the  troubled  kingdom 
pass  into  the  hands  of  a  valiant  and  virtuous  foreign 
prince  such  as  the  young  Norwegian  shows  himself  to 
be. 

We  are  pleased  to  learn  that  the  theatre-goers  of 
the  day,  who  were  beginning  to  tire  of  the  continual 
presentation  of  Shakespeare  in  adulterated  form, 
were  not  very  favorably  disposed  towards  this  ver- 
sion, not  even  the  acting  of  Garrick  being  able  to 
make  them  take  kindly  to  it.  It  was  not  often  played, 
and  after  the  revival  of  the  original  in  1780  was  no 
more  heard  of.  The  day  of  Shakespeare  alteration 
was  nearing  its  end  and  few  serious  original  attempts 
to  correct  the  great  Elizabethan  were  made  after  this 
date.  Even  if  he  were  lacking  in  art  as  the  play- 
wrights and  critics  declared,  the  people  began  to 
prefer  Shakespeare  with  all  his  imperfections  on  his 
head  rather  than  with  amendments. 

Tate  Wilkinson,  manager  of  the  theatres  af^  Hull 
and  York,  who  published  in  1790  his  memoirs,  which 
are  full  of  entertaining  and  valuable  information  as 
to  the  London  and  Dublin  theatres,  applied  to  Victor 
for  a  copy  of  Garrick's  "  Hamlet "  as  acted  at  Drury 
Lane.  Victor  in  his  reply  said :  "  It  is  not  in  my  power 
to  send  you  the  corrections  lately  made  in  *  Hamlet ' ; 
no  such  favor  can  be  granted  to  anyone.  I  presume 
the  play  will  never  be  printed  with  the  alterations, 
as  they  are  far  from  being  universally  liked;  nay, 
they  are  greatly  disliked  by  the  million,  who  love 
Shakespeare  with  all  his  glorious  absurdities  and  will 
not  suffer  a  bold  intruder  to  cut  him  up."  This  led 
Wilkinson  to  make  an  alteration  himself,  which  he 
published  in  his  "Wandering  Patentee,"  a  history  of 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  157 

the  Yorkshire  theatres  in  four  volumes,  1795. 
Genest  thus  describes  it:  "He  [Wilkinson]  divides 
the  acts  much  as  Garrick  had  done.  In  the  Fifth  Act, 
Hamlet  fights  with  the  King  and  kills  him ;  the  Queen 
runs  out  shrieking;  Laertes  kills  Hamlet,  but  is  not 
killed  himself.  Wilkinson,  in  professed  imitation  of 
Colley  Cibber,  that  great  improver  of  Shakespeare, 
inserts  passages  from  some  of  his  other  plays,  in  par- 
ticular, the  fine  scene  of  Cardinal  Beaufort's  death 
(the  King  speaks  what  belongs  to  the  Cardinal)." 
That  Wilkinson  left  Laertes  alive  makes  it  more 
probable  that  Boaden's  account  of  Garrick's  version 
is  the  correct  one,  for  the  later  reviser  would  be  in- 
fluenced by  his  memory  of  his  predecessor's  procedure 
in  this  respect. 

King  Lear 

The  version  of  this  most  tragic  of  tragedies  made 
by  Nahum  Tate,  poet  laureate  and  friend  of  Dryden, 
competes  with  Gibber's  "  Richard  III  "  for  the  doubt- 
ful honor  of  being  the  most  famous  of  the  alterations 
of  Shakespeare.  '*  King  Lear"  was,  as  Downes  tes- 
tifies, acted  after  the  Restoration  as  originally 
written,  but,  as  it  was  considered  too  gloomy  and 
terrible  by  the  playgoers,  Tate,  as  Lamb  expresses  it, 
"  put  his  hook  into  the  nostrils  of  this  leviathan  "  in 
order  that  the  actors  might  "  draw  the  mighty  beast 
about  more  easily."  His  version  appeared  in  1681. 
It  superseded  the  original  and  in  its  own  form,  or  as 
amended  by  Garrick,  who  put  in  more  Shakespeare, 
and  Kemble,  who  went  back  again  to  Tate,  rejecting 
most  of  Garrick's  restorations,  kept  the  stage  for 
nearly  160  years.  Indeed,  Shakespeare's  play  was  so 
little  known  that  managers  did  not  hesitate  to  adver- 


158      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

tise  the  revisions  of  Tate  as  Shakespeare's  play,  and 
when  the  latter  was  revived  in  1838  it  was  supposed 
by  most  of  the  audience  to  be  an  alteration. 

Lamb  has  declared  that  "  '  Lear '  is  essentially  im- 
possible to  be  represented  on  a  stage,"  because  of  its 
sublime  tragic  force,  any  adequate  conception  of 
which  actors  and  stage  machinery  are  impotent  to 
give.  This  opinion,  which  seems  to  have  won  general 
acceptance,  —  "King  Lear"  is  now  rarely  acted  — 
partly  exonerates  Tate  for  his  experiment,  but  is  not 
meant  to  approve  of  the  bungling  manner  in  which  he 
altered  the  play  in  the  effort  to  make  it  more  palatable 
to  the  theatre  patrons  of  his  time.  As  Tate  has  taken 
pains  to  set  forth  his  attitude  and  purpose  in  his  dedi- 
cation, it  is  well  to  let  him  speak  for  himself.  After 
declaring  that  nothing  but  the  power  of  the  per- 
suasions of  his  friend  [the  person  to  whom  his  version 
is  dedicated]  and  his  own  zeal  for  all  the  remains  of 
Shakespeare  could  have  impelled  him  to  so  bold  an 
undertaking,  he  continues:  "I  found  that  the  new- 
modelling  of  this  story  would  force  me  sorrfetimes 
on  the  difficult  task  of  making  the  chiefest  persons 
speak  something  like  their  character,  on  matter 
whereof  I  had  no  ground  in  my  author.  Lear's  real 
and  Edgar's  pretended  madness  have  so  much  of  ex- 
travagant nature  (I  know  not  how  else  to  express  it) 
as  could  never  have  started  but  from  our  Shake- 
speare's creating  fancy.  The  images  and  language 
are  so  odd  and  surprising,  and  yet  so  agreeable  and 
proper,  that  whilst  we  grant  that  none  but  Shake- 
speare could  have  formed  such  conceptions,  yet  we 
are  satisfied  that  they  were  the  only  things  in  the 
world  that  ought  to  be  said  on  those  occasions.  I 
found  the  whole  ...  a  heap  of  jewels,  unstrung  and 
unpolished;  yet  so  dazzling  in  their  disorder  that  I 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  159 

soon  perceived  I  had  seized  a  treasure.  'Twas  my 
good  fortune  to  light  on  one  expedient  to  rectify  what 
was  wanting  in  the  regularity  and  probability  of  the 
tale,  which  was  to  run  through  the  whole,  as  love 
betwixt  Edgar  and  Cordelia,  that  never  changed  a 
word  with  each  other  in  the  original.  This  renders 
Cordelia's  indifference  and  her  father's  passion  in 
the  first  scene  probable.  It  likewise  gives  countenance 
to  Edgar's  disguise,  making  that  a  generous  design 
that  was  before  a  poor  shift  to  save  his  life.  The 
distress  of  the  story  is  evidently  heightened  by  It; 
and  It  particularly  gave  occasion  of  a  new  scene  or 
two  of  more  success  (perhaps)  than  merit.  This 
method  necessarily  threw  me  on  making  the  tale  con- 
clude In  a  success  to  the  Innocent  distressed  persons; 
otherwise  I  must  have  encumbered  the  stage  with 
dead  bodies,  which  conduct  makes  many  tragedies 
conclude  with  unseasonable  jests.  Yet  I  was  racked 
with  no  small  fears  for  so  bold  a  change,  till  I 
found  It  well  received  by  my  audience;  and  if  this 
will  not  satisfy  the  reader,  I  can  produce  an  authority 
that  questionless  will."  He  then  quotes  some  remarks 
made  by  Dryden  in  the  preface  to  his  "  Spanish 
Friar"  as  to  the  difficulty  of  making  a  tragedy  end 
happily  and  the  necessity  of  a  writer's  exercising  art 
and  judgment  In  order  to  do  it  without  violence  to 
probability.  "  I  have  one  thing  more  to  apologize 
for,"  Tate  continues,  "  which  Is,  that  I  have  used  less 
quaintness  [refinement]  of  expression  even  In  the 
newest  parts  of  the  play.  I  confess,  'twas  design  In 
me,  partly  to  comply  with  my  author's  style,  to  make 
the  scenes  of  a  piece,  and  partly  to  give  it  some  re- 
semblance of  the  time  and  persons  here  represented." 
My  account  of  the  play  Is  drawn  from  a  full  de- 
scription given  In  the  New  Variorum  "  King  Lear." 


i6o     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

The  Fool  is  omitted,  in  obedience  to  the  rule  that 
comic  and  tragic  should  not  be  mingled,  and  the  King 
of  France  also  is,  of  course,  rejected,  as  Cordelia  is 
to  have  a  different  husband.  At  the  opening  of  the 
play,  Gloucester  is  already  convinced  of  Edgar's 
treachery  and  Edmund  is  in  high  favor.  As  the  royal 
procession  is  entering,  before  the  division  of  the  king- 
dom, Edgar  declares  to  Cordelia  his  love  for  her. 
She  assures  him  that  his  love  is  ardently  returned,  and 
her  blunt  answers  to  her  father  are  represented  as 
prompted,  not  so  much  by  detestation  of  her  sister's 
hypocrisy  as  by  a  desire  to  escape  marriage  with  Bur- 
gundy. After  she  is  cast  off  by  her  father  and  re- 
fused by  Burgundy,  Edgar  renews  his  suit,  but  Cor- 
delia, as  would  be  proper  for  any  fashionable  young 
lady  of  Tate's  time  to  do,  becomes  coquettish,  think- 
ing she  must  test  Edgar's  love  by  affected  coldness. 
The  forged  letter  is  shown  to  Gloucester,  after 
Edmund  has  persuaded  Edgar  to  conceal  himself. 
The  rest  of  the  First  Act  follows  fairly  closely  the 
original.  . 

In  the  Second  Act,  Edmund  induces  Edgar  to  fly 
and  the  angry  Gloucester  tells  the  former  to  pursue 
the  fugitive  and  bring  him  "piecemeal"  back.  In 
the  third  scene,  Edgar's  soliloquy  has  an  addition  re- 
ferring to  his  love  for  Cordelia  and  declaring  that  the 
hope  of  doing  service  to  Cordelia  in  some  "white 
minute  "  makes  him  want  to  live.  The  act  does  not 
depart  widely  from  Shakespeare  as  to  the  conduct  of 
the  action. 

The  first  scene  of  Act  III  is  Act  III,  2,  of  the 
original,  without  much  change.  In  the  next  scene, 
Edmund  receives  letters  from  both  Regan  and 
Goneril,  and  to  him  enters  Gloucester,  who  reveals 
that  he  is  plotting  to  restore  Lear.     As  the  Earl  goes 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  i6i 

out,  Cordelia  meets  him  and  implores  him  to  aid  her 
father.  Before  he  leaves  her,  he  tells  her  of  his  plot 
to  restore  the  king.  Cordelia  orders  her  maid, 
Arante,  to  provide  her  a  disguise,  as  she  is  going  to 
relieve  her  father  in  spite  of  her  wicked  sisters'  decree 
of  death  to  any  that  do  so.  Edmund,  who  has  been 
standing  meanwhile  at  a  distance,  and  has  overheard 
this,  at  first,  in  admiration  of  Cordelia,  expresses  a 
desire  for  her,  which  "  hopeless  fire  "  he  says  he  must 
quench,  but,  later,  determines  to  take  advantage  of 
his  knowledge  of  her  design  to  forward  his  own  by 
sending  two  ruffians  to  seize  her  in  some  desert  place. 
The  next  scene  is  Shakespeare's  III,  4,  the  Fool's 
part,  of  course,  being  omitted.  After  Lear,  Kent, 
and  the  others  have  departed,  Cordelia  and  Arante 
enter,  followed  by  Edmund's  two  ruffians,  who  seize 
them.  The  "  white  minute  "  Edgar  has  been  hoping 
for  has  come;  he  rushes  in  with  "  Avaunt  ye  blood- 
hounds! "  and  drives  them  off  (bawling  "The  devil, 
the  devil!  "  )  with  his  quarter-staff.  After  keeping  up 
his  disguise  for  a  short  time,  his  great  love  is  too 
much  for  him  and  he  reveals  his  identity  to  her,  whom 
he  had  recognized,  and  explains  why  he  is  disguised, 
not  forgetting  to  refer  to  her  Injunction  not  to  men- 
tion his  love  to  her  again.  This  overcomes  her  and 
she  receives  him  most  rapturously,  declaring  that  his 
rags  are  dearer  to  her  than  a  monarch's  richest  pomp. 
The  scene  ends  with  his  offer  to  protect  Cordelia  and 
her  maid,  who  must  spend  the  night  in  the  hovel. 
The  next  scene  is  that  in  which  Gloucester's  eyes  are 
put  out.  At  the  close,  the  Earl  utters  a  long  speech 
lamenting  the  loss  of  his  sight  and  expressing  his  pur- 
pose to  seek  revenge  by  gaining  for  the  King  and 
himself  the  pity  of  the  people,  to  whom  he  proposes 
to  exhibit  himself  for  the  purpose.    When  his  revenge 


i62      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

is  accomplished,  he  will  throw  himself  from  some 
precipice. 

From  this  point  on,  Tate  departs  more  widely 
from  Shakespeare. 

At  the  opening  of  the  Fourth  Act,  Edmund  and 
Regan  are  seated  in  loverlike  fashion,  listening  to 
music.  After  an  exchange  of  mutual  vows,  Edmund, 
as  he  is  about  to  depart,  pulls  out  his  picture,  which  he 
gives  to  Regan,  and  in  so  doing  drops  Goneril's  note, 
thereby  confirming  Regan's  jealousy.  An  officer  then 
enters  and  announces  a  great  rebellion  stirred  up  by 
Gloucester.  In  the  next  scene,  Edgar  and  Gloucester 
on  their  way  to  Dover  are  met  by  Kent  and  Cordelia, 
the  latter  of  whom  expresses  to  Gloucester  her  sorrow 
at  being,  even  remotely,  the  cause  of  his  misfortune. 
He  forgives  her  and  gives  her  his  blessing.  Kent, 
who  is  urged  to  assume  the  leadership  of  the  rebel- 
lion, leaves  for  that  purpose  with  Cordelia.  The  next 
scene  is  IV,  6,  in  which  Tate  adheres  to  the  original 
pretty  closely.  Shakespeare's  IV,  7,  with  little 
change,  comes  next.  Lear's  speech  begiimin^  "  Be 
your  tears  wet?  "  is  expanded  to  eight  lines  and  other- 
wise altered,  and  the  Doctor's  speech  is  modified  and 
given  to  the  "  Gentleman."  After  Lear  is  led  off, 
Cordelia  has  a  soliloquy  which  merits  quotation  as  a 
sample  of  Tate's  imitation  of  Shakespeare's  style: 

"  The  gods  restore  you.  —  Hark  I  hear  afar 
The  beaten  drum ;  old  Kent's  a  man  of  's  word. 
O  for  an  arm 

Like  the  fierce  Thunderer's,  when  the  earth-born  sons 
Storm'd  Heav'n,  to  fight  this  injur'd  father's  battle! 
That  I  cou'd  shift  my  sex,  and  dye  me  deep 
In  his  opposer's  blood !     But  as  I  may, 
With  women's  weapons,  piety  and  pray'rs, 
I'll  aid  his  cause.  —  You  never-erring  gods 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  163 

Fight  on  his  side,  and  thunder  on  his  foes 
Such  tempests  as  his  poor  ag'd  head  sustain'd; 
Your  image  suffers  when  a  monarch  bleeds. 
'Tis  your  own  cause,  for  that  your  succours  bring. 
Revenge  yourselves  and  right  an  injur'd  king." 

The  Fifth  Act  is,  as  the  new  conclusion  necessi- 
tates, practically  rewritten.  It  opens  with  a  short 
scene  between  Goneril  and  her  "  Poisoner,"  in  which 
the  latter  assures  her  that  the  banquet  and  poison  for 
Regan  are  ready.  In  the  next  scene,  Edmund,  alone 
in  his  tent,  exults,  in  rather  too  highly  impassioned 
language  for  modern  taste,  over  the  success  of  his 
amours  with  the  two  sisters.  In  the  third  scene,  after 
Edgar  has  left  Gloucester  to  go  into  the  battle,  the 
Earl  utters  a  soliloquy  of  some  fifteen  lines  of  turgid 
and  tedious  verse,  regretting  his  inability  to  take  part 
in  the  fray.  Edgar  returns  with  the  news  that  the 
battle  is  lost,  and  Albany,  Goneril,  and  others  enter 
with  Lear  and  Cordelia  as  prisoners.  Goneril  tells  a 
captain,  aside,  to  dispatch  the  prisoners.  Then  Edgar, 
in  disguise,  comes  in,  impeaches  Edmund  of  treason, 
and  challenges  him.  Kent,  Cordelia,  and  Lear  are 
left  guarded,  while  the  others  depart  to  witness  the 
duel.  Lear  expresses  deepest  regret  that  Kent  and 
Cordelia,  whom  he  had  wronged,  are  witnesses  of  his 
disgrace  and,  worst  of  all,  fellow-sufferers  with  him. 
He  weeps  and  almost  faints  when  told  of  Kent's  fol- 
lowing him  as  a  servant.  On  recovery,  he  tells  the 
guards  to  take  them  to  prison,  where  he  says  they  will 
"  die  the  wonders  of  the  world."  The  duel  between 
Edgar  and  Edmund  takes  place  after  much  boasting, 
respectively,  of  their  legitimate  and  illegitimate 
births.  Goneril  and  Regan  avow  their  love  and  jeal- 
ousy over  Edmund's  wounded  body.     Goneril  then 


1 64     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

reveals  to  Regan  that  she  has  given  her  poison  at  the 
banquet  on  the  previous  evening,  whereupon  Regan 
informs  her,  with  equal  malignity,  that  she  has  done 
the  same  to  her  at  her  own  banquet.  Edmund  stops 
their  "  untimely  strife,"  as  he  calls  it,  and  is  borne 
out  in  resignation,  sustained  by  the  reflection : 

"  Who  would  not  choose,  like  me,  to  yield  his  breath 
T'have  rival  queens  contend  for  him  in  death." 

At  the  opening  of  the  last  scene,  which  is  at  the 
prison,  Lear  is  asleep  with  his  head  in  Cordelia's  lap. 
She  wonders  what  has  become  of  Edgar.  A  captain 
and  officers  enter  with  ropes  to  hang  the  prisoners. 
Cordelia  begs  them,  if  they  will  not  spare  her  father, 
at  least  to  dispatch  her  first.  They  assent  to  her  re- 
quest, and  are  seizing  her,  when  Lear  charges  them 
to  spare  her  and,  finding  they  have  no  pity,  snatches 
a  partisan  and  strikes  two  of  them  down.  The  rest 
leave  Cordelia  and  turn  on  him.  At  this  point  Edgar 
and  Albany  enter,  and  the  latter  orders  guards  to 
seize  "  those  instruments  of  cruelty."  Cordelia  ex- 
claims, "  My  Edgar,  Oh !  "  and  he  replies,  "  My  dear 
Cordelia !  "  saying  further  that  their  sufferings  are 
over.  Albany  has  Kent  brought  in  and  has  Edgar  go 
out  to  guide  his  father  in  that  he  may  hear  the  con- 
clusion. Lear  expects  still  to  be  killed  and  asks 
mercy  for  Cordelia.  Albany  assures  him  that  bless- 
ings are  coming  to  him,  tells  him  of  the  wickedness  of 
Goneril  and  Regan,  and  of  Edmund's  being  mortally 
wounded,  and  informs  him  that  he  has  resolved  to 
restore  the  kingdom  to  him.  Lear  is  greatly  aston- 
ished and,  after  saying  rapturously  to  Kent  "  Old 
Lear  shall  be  a  king  again,"  adds  "  Cordelia  then 
shall  be  a  queen  —  Cordelia  is  a   queen."     Edgar 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  165 

enters  with  Gloucester,  the  latter  of  whom  kneels  to 
Lear  and  is  told  by  the  king  to  kneel  to  Cordelia,  who 
has  the  sovereignty  and  is  the  queen.  After  Edgar 
tells  Lear  that  Edmund,  Goneril,  and  Regan  are 
dead,  Lear  bids  him  take  the  crowned  Cordelia. 
Gloucester,  at  the  command  of  Lear,  joins  him  in 
blessing  them.  Edgar  and  Cordelia  modestly  declare 
they  are  over-recompensed  for  their  merit  and  suffer- 
ings. Lear  proposes  that  Gloucester,  Kent,  and  he 
retire  to  "  some  close  cell "  where  they  will  pass  the 
remainder  of  their  days  in  "  calm  reflections  "  on  their 
past  fortunes,  "  cheered  with  relation  of  the  pros- 
perous reign  of  this  celestial  pair."  Edgar  ends  the 
play  with  a  speech  on  the  happy  outcome  of  things, 
concluding  with  the  moral  of  it  all: 

"  Our  drooping  country  now  erects  her  head, 
Peace  spreads  her  balmy  wings,  and  Plenty  blooms. 
Divine  Cordelia,  all  the  gods  can  witness 
How  much  thy  love  to  empire  I  prefer! 
Thy  bright  example  shall  convince  the  world 
(Whatever  storms  of  fortune  are  decreed) 
That  Truth  and  Virtue  shall  at  last  succeed." 

Such  is  the  "King  Lear"  which  delighted  the 
audiences  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  in  which  Bet- 
terton  and  other  great  actors  won  applause !  This  is 
the  "  heap  of  jewels  "  when  they  have  been  strung  and 
polished  and  their  "  disorder"  has  been  removed! 

Tate  must  have  felt  pleased  and  flattered  indeed 
at  the  success  of  his  "  bold  undertaking."  For  many 
years  his  version  was  accepted  almost  without  ques- 
tion. The  general  opinion  of  it  will  appear  from 
the  criticism  of  Doctor  Johnson  on  the  play,  who,  in 
commenting  on  Shakespeare's  treatment  of  Cordelia, 
says:   "Shakespeare  has  suffered  the  virtue  of  Cor- 


i66     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

delia  to  perish  in  a  just  cause,  contrary  to  the  natural 
ideas  of  justice,  to  the  hope  of  the  reader,  and,  what 
is  yet  more  strange,  to  the  faith  of  the  chronicles.  A 
play  in  which  the  wicked  prosper,  and  the  virtuous 
miscarry,  may  doubtless  be  good,  because  it  is  a  just 
representation  of  the  common  events  of  human  life; 
but,  since  all  reasonable  beings  naturally  love  justice, 
I  cannot  easily  be  persuaded  that  the  observation  of 
justice  makes  a  play  worse;  or  that,  if  other  excel- 
lences are  equal,  the  audience  will  not  always  rise 
better  pleased  from  the  final  triumph  of  persecuted 
virtue.  In  the  present  case  the  public  has  decided. 
Cordelia,  from  the  time  of  Tate,  has  always  retired 
with  victory  and  felicity.  And,  if  my  sensations 
could  add  anything  to  the  general  suffrage,  I  might 
relate,  that  I  was  many  years  ago  so  shocked  by  Cor- 
delia's death,  that  I  know  not  whether  I  ever  endured 
to  read  again  the  last  scenes  of  the  play  till  I  under- 
took to  revise  them  as  an  editor." 

Again,  Arthur  Murphy,  whom  Doctor  JoJinson 
pronounced  a  judicious  critic,  after  saying,  in  the 
course  of  some  remarks  on  this  version,  that  he  should 
like  to  see  the  experiment  made  of  having  Lear  die  as 
in  the  original,  expresses  his  conviction  "  that  the  play, 
as  it  is  altered,  will  always  be  most  agreeable  to  an 
audience,  as  the  circumstances  of  Lear's  restoration, 
and  the  virtuous  Edgar's  alliance  with  the  amiable 
Cordelia,  must  always  call  forth  those  gushing  tears 
which  are  swelled  and  ennobled  by  a  virtuous  joy." 

Our  admiration  for  Addison  is  increased  when  we 
find  him,  in  171 1,  venturing  to  express  his  dissent 
from  the  then  apparently  universal  opinion  in  the  fol- 
lowing words,  "  '  King  Lear '  is  an  admirable  tragedy 
—  as  Shakespeare  wrote  it;  but,  as  it  is  reformed 
according  to  the  chimerical  notion  of  poetical  justice, 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  167 

in  my  humble  opinion  it  has  lost  half  its  beauty." 
It  will  not  be  profitable  to  take  time  and  space  to 
do  more  than  comment  briefly  on  the  principal 
changes  in  the  plot,  the  love  affair  between  Edgar  and 
Cordelia,  and  the  happy  ending.  The  former,  on 
which  Tate  especially  prided  himself,  is  chiefly  to  be 
condemned  because  it  is  unnecessary.  Cordelia's  be- 
havior toward  her  father  is  most  probable  and  natural 
as  it  is  in  Shakespeare.  It  does  not  need  to  be  ex- 
plained by  the  added  motive  of  a  desire  to  escape  mar- 
riage to  a  suitor  she  does  not  love  in  order  to  marry 
Edgar.  Further,  Edgar's  assumption  of  disguise  to 
save  his  life  is  a  good  and  sufficient  reason  for  such  a 
move.  This  new  feature  is  really  due  to  the  influence 
of  that  notion,  the  baneful  effect  of  which  we  have  so 
often  observed  potent  in  the  revision  of  Shakespeare, 
that  the  passion  of  love  should  be  a  prominent  element 
in  every  play.  It  is  responsible  also  for  the  amplifica- 
tion of  Edmund's  intrigues  with  Goneril  and  Regan. 
Shakespeare's  purpose  in  this  play  is  to  show  the  re- 
sults of  yielding  to  various  evil  passions  or  weak- 
nesses, anger,  rashness,  incontinency,  ingratitude,  etc., 
and  to  teach  us  to  control  or  not  to  harbor  them  by 
letting  us  see  the  severe  punishments  that  befell 
some  persons  who  did  yield  to  them.  To  make 
the  outcome  more  tragic,  he  involves  the  innocent  Cor- 
delia in  her  erring  father's  fate.  This  he  was  per- 
fectly justified  in  doing,  and  it  is  absolutely  true  to 
life.  With  a  few  inimitable  touches  he  has  made 
Cordelia  one  of  the  finest  portrayals  of  the  virtuous 
female  character  in  literature,  and  that  without  bring- 
ing her  much  on  the  scene.  Tate's  Cordelia  is  far 
inferior,  in  spite  of  her  greater  prominence,  and  espec- 
ially displeasing  is  his  making  her  for  a  time  a 
coquette. 


i68     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

Nor  has  he  improved  the  characterizations  of  the 
wicked  persons  of  the  drama.  Edmund,  Goneril,  and 
Regan  are  detestable  enough  in  Shakespeare.  Tate 
has  unnecessarily  made  them  even  more  villainous 
and  unnatural. 

The  change  in  the  denouement  of  the  play,  by 
which  it  is  converted  Into  a  tragi-comedy  and  robbed 
of  most  of  Its  pathos,  a  change  which  met  with  such 
hearty  approval  for  so  many  years,  has  been  so  well 
criticised  by  Lamb,  that  his  comment  on  it  may  be 
said  to  be  the  final  word,  and  as  such  I  quote  it: 
"A  happy  ending!  As  if  the  living  martyrdom  that 
Lear  had  gone  through,  —  the  flaying  of  his  feelings 
alive,  —  did  not  make  a  fair  dismissal  from  the  stage 
of  life  the  only  decorous  thing  for  him.  If  he  Is  to 
live  and  be  happy  after,  If  he  could  sustain  this 
world's  burden  after,  why  all  this  pudder  and  prepa- 
ration,—  why  torment  us  with  all  this  unnecessary 
sympathy?  As  if  the  childish  pleasure  of  getting  his 
gilt  robes  and  sceptre  again  could  tempt  hini  to  act 
over  again  his  misused  station,  —  as  if  at  his  years 
and  with  his  experience,  anything  was  left  but  to  die." 

I  have  already  given  a  few  examples  of  Tate's 
lame  attempts  to  be  Shakespearean.  One  or  two 
others  are  so  amusing  from  their  bombastic  character 
as  to  be  worth  quoting.  When  Gloucester  says  to 
Edmund  in  Act  I,  scene  2,  "  Wind  me  into  him," 
Tate  adds  this  choice  bit  of  bloodthirstlness, 

"  That  I  may  bite  the  traitor's  heart,  and  fold 
His  bleeding  entrails  on  my  vengeful  arm." 

Again,  in  Act  II,  4,  when  Regan  asks,  "  What  need 
one?"  Lear  Is  made  to  reply,  instead  of  "  O,  reason 
not  the  need,"  etc.  : 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  169 

"  Blood !     Fire !  here  —  leprosies  and  bluest  plagues ! 
Room,  room  for  hell  to  belch  her  horrors  up 
And  drench  the  Circes  in  a  stream  of  fire. 
Hark  how  th'  infernals  echo  to  my  rage 
Their  whips  and  snakes." 

Regan  comments,  "How  lewd  a  thing  Is  passion!" 
and  Goneril  adds,  "  So  old  and  stomachful !  " 

It  was  not  until  1756  that  any  attempt  was  made 
to  provide  a  different  "King  Lear"  from  Tate's. 
Garrick,  In  this  year,  wishing  to  produce  the  play 
and  being  not  entirely  satisfied  with  Tate's  treatment 
of  It,  decided  to  reform  Tate's  version,  by  restoring 
some  of  the  omitted  portions  of  the  original,  rather 
than  to  go  back  to  the  latter  entirely.  Although  he 
deserves  some  credit  for  the  restorations,  he  Is  to  be 
condemned  for  not  venturing  to  discard  Tate  alto- 
gether. But  he  had  to  please  his  audiences,  and  it 
Is  charitable  to  believe  that  he  felt  compelled  for 
commercial  reasons  to  conform  to  their  desires  In 
respect  to  the  retention  of  the  love  affair  between 
Edgar  and  Cordelia.  As  might  be  expected  of  the 
man  who  omitted  the  gravedlggers  from  "  Hamlet," 
Garrick  follows  Tate  in  rejecting  the  Fool.  He 
borrows  from  Tate  in  many  minor  respects,  even 
when  restoring  Shakespeare,  as  In  Edgar's  soliloquy 
(II,  3)  and  In  the  second  heath  scene  (III,  2).  In 
his  III,  I,  he  Introduces  lines  from  the  scene  between 
Cordelia  and  Gloucester  In  Tate.  In  scene  2,  he  re- 
tains the  seizing  of  Cordelia  and  her  maid  by  the  two 
ruffians  and  her  rescue  by  Edgar.  Scene  3  Is  all  Tate, 
as  is  IV,  I,  and  IV,  2.  IV,  3,  Is  Shakespeare's.  The 
Fifth  Act  Is  practically  all  Tate's. 

In  1768,  the  elder  Colman  brought  out  a  version 
of  "King  Lear"  at  Covent  Garden.  Aside  from 
omitting  the  Fool  and  making  some  transpositions 


170     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

and  lesser  omissions,  Colman  restored  the  first  four 
acts  of  Shakespeare.  The  Fifth  Act  is  however 
largely  taken  from  Tate,  although  he  rejected  the  love 
affair  between  Edgar  and  Cordelia.  His  alteration 
was  not  well  received  and  was  soon  withdrawn.  The 
audience  were  displeased  at  being  deprived  of  the 
love  scenes. 

Colman,  in  his  advertisement,  makes  some  judi- 
cious remarks  on  Tate's  version  that  are  worth  giving 
as  a  part  of  the  criticism  of  it:  "This  very  ex- 
pedient," he  says,  "of  a  love  between  Edgar  and 
Cordelia,  on  which  Tate  felicitates  himself,  seemed  to 
me  to  be  one  of  the  capital  objections  to  his  alteration. 
For  even  supposing  that  it  rendered  Cordelia's  indif- 
ference to  her  father  more  probable  (an  indifference 
which  Shakespeare  has  nowhere  implied),  it  assigns 
a  very  poor  motive  for  it;  so  that  what  Edgar  gains 
on  the  side  of  romantic  generosity,  Cordelia  loses  on 
that  of  real  virtue.  Tate,  in  whose  days  love  was  the 
soul  of  tragedy  as  well  as  comedy,  was,  howler,  so 
devoted  to  intrigue  that  he  has  not  only  given 
Edmund  a  passion  for  Cordelia,  but  has  injudiciously 
amplified  on  his  criminal  commerce  with  Goneril  and 
Regan,  which  is  the  most  disgusting  part  of  the 
original.  In  all  these  circumstances,  it  is  generally 
agreed,  that  Tate's  alteration  is  for  the  worse;  and 
his  '  King  Lear '  would  probably  have  quitted  the 
stage  long  ago  had  he  not  made  '  the  tale  conclude 
in  a  success  to  the  innocent  distressed  persons.'  Even 
in  this  catastrophe,  he  has  incurred  the  censure  of 
Addison,  but  '  in  the  present  case,'  says  Doctor  John- 
son, '  the  public  has  decided,  and  Cordelia,  from  the 
time  of  Tate,  has  always  retired  with  victory  and 
felicity.' 

"  To  reconcile  the  catastrophe  of  Tate  to  the  story 
of  Shakespeare,  was  the  first  grand  object  which  I 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  171 

proposed  to  myself  in  this  alteration, .  .  .  and  I  have 
now  endeavored  to  purge  the  tragedy  of  '  Lear '  of 
the  alloy  of  Tate,  which  has  so  long  been  suffered  to 
debase  it." 

He  goes  on  to  criticise  some  of  the  features  of 
Shakespeare's  play  that  seemed  to  him  not  consistent 
with  nature  and  which  he  therefore  removed  when 
possible:  "The  utter  improbability  of  Gloster's 
imagining,  though  blind,  that  he  had  leaped  down 
Dover  Cliff,  has  been  justly  censured  by  Doctor 
Warton;  and  In  the  representation  it  Is  still  more 
liable  to  objection  than  In  print.  I  have,  therefore, 
without  scruple,  omitted  It,  preserving,  however,  at 
the  same  time,  that  celebrated  description  of  the  cliff 
in  the  mouth  of  Edgar.  The  putting  out  Gloster's 
eyes  is  also  so  unpleasing  a  circumstance,  that  I  would 
have  altered  it,  if  possible,  but,  upon  examination,  it 
appeared  to  be  so  closely  interwoven  with  the  fable, 
that  I  durst  not  venture  to  change  It.  I  had  once 
some  idea  of  retaining  the  character  of  the  Fool;  but, 
though  Doctor  Warton  has  very  truly  observed  that 
the  poet  '  has  so  well  conducted  even  the  natural 
jargon  of  the  Beggar  and  the  jestings  of  the  Fool, 
which  in  other  hands  must  have  sunk  into  burlesque, 
that  they  contribute  to  heighten  the  pathetic ' ;  yet, 
after  the  most  serious  consideration,  I  was  convinced 
that  such  a  scene  '  would  sink  into  burlesque '  In  the 
representation,  and  would  not  be  endured  on  the 
modern  stage." 

We  believe  his  and  Warton's  opinion  as  to  the 
cliff  episode  erroneous,  for  it  is  perfectly  natural  that 
a  blind,  superstitious,  credulous,  and  distracted  old 
man,  such  as  Gloucester  was,  should  imagine  almost 
anything  to  have  happened  to  him.  We  think  also 
that  the  Fool  should  be  retained,  if  the  cast  includes 
an  actor  capable  of  doing  the  part  justice. 


172     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

Garrick's  alteration  held  the  stage  for  fifty  years. 
In  1809,  Kemble  saw  fit  to  try  his  hand  on  the  play. 
There  was  no  reason  for  him  to  touch  it  unless  he 
intended  to  restore  more  of  Shakespeare;  but  this 
was  far  from  his  purpose.  Instead  of  restoring  more 
of  Shakespeare,  he,  to  his  everlasting  disgrace,  re- 
stored more  of  Tate.  Indeed,  Shakespeare  and  Tate 
were  treated  with  no  discrimination  by  him.  He  is 
said  even  to  have  advertised  his  "King  Lear"  as 
Shakespeare's  play. 

Kemble  begins  his  play  like  Tate  and  to  him  the 
First  Act  adheres  closely.  One  of  Kemble's  own  ad- 
ditions is  a  direction  for  Oswald  to  enter  singing  "  tol 
de  rol,"  etc.  Acts  II  and  III  are  virtually  Tate's, 
some  that  Garrick  had  rejected  in  the  latter  being  re- 
stored. Act  IV  begins  with  the  last  scene  of  Tate's 
Act  III.  Kemble  omits  Gloucester's  soliloquy,  his 
fall  from  the  cliff,  and  the  most  essential  part  of 
Oswald's  dying  speech  (which  Garrick  had  restored) . 
His  Fifth  Act  does  not  differ  greatly  from  Garrick's. 
More  of  Tate  however  is  restored.  This  alteration, 
which  is  thus  seen  to  be  far  worse  than  Garrick's,  is  a 
great  blot  on  Kemble's  reputation  as  a  man  of  taste 
in  dramatic  matters  and  a  marked  manifestation  of 
his  lack  of  reverence  for  Shakespeare. 

In  "  King  Lear"  as  produced  by  Kean  in  1824  at 
the  Theatre  Royal,  the  first  four  acts  follow  Tate 
closely,  with  occasional  restorations  of  lines  from 
Shakespeare.  The  Fifth  Act  has  for  its  first  scene  the 
last  scene  of  Tate's  Act  IV.  Scene  2  is  Shakespeare's. 
Scene  3  is  in  the  main  like  Shakespeare,  but  some  of 
Gloucester's  soliloquy  from  Tate  is  introduced. 

Othello,  the  Moor  of  Venice 
This  play  has  happily  escaped  alteration. 


CHAPTER   IX.    ANTONY  AND   CLEOPATRA  — 
CYMBELINE  —  PERICLES 

Antony  and  Cleopatra 

THIS  play  was  fitted  for  the  stage  by  Edward 
Capell,  the  Shakespeare  editor,  and  acted 
at  Drury  Lane,  January  3,  1759,  with 
Garrick,  who  supervised  the  production, 
as  Antony.  The  adaptation  was  merely  by  trans- 
position of  scenes  and  abridgment.  For  convenience 
of  representation  a  number  of  the  minor  characters 
were  omitted,  but  their  speeches  were  in  many  cases 
transferred,  often  without  propriety,  to  other  char- 
acters. A  stanza  was  added  to  the  drinking  song  in 
II,  7. 

Dryden's  dramatic  masterpiece  "All  for  Love" 
Is  not  an  alteration  of  Shakespeare,  but  a  new  play, 
professedly  in  imitation  of  him,  on  the  same  subject. 
Sir  Charles  Sedley  also  wrote  a  play,  in  rime,  with  the 
title  of  "Antony  and  Cleopatra,"  but  It  Is  entirely  in- 
dependent of  Shakespeare's  drama. 

In  1 8 13,  "Antony  and  Cleopatra"  was  revived 
at  Covent  Garden,  with  additions  from  Dryden. 
This  alteration  was  probably  made  by  Kemble.  The 
play  follows  Shakespeare  fairly  closely  as  far  as  II, 
4,  though  with  many  unnecessary  changes  of  words. 
The  rest  of  the  Second  Act  Is  mostly  from  Dryden. 
After  Antony's  entrance,  the  scene  In  Dryden's  Act 
II,  in  which  Antony  and  Cleopatra  reproach  each 
other,  is  Introduced  with  slight  changes.  Genest  says 
of  this :  "  Dryden's  scene  is  a  very  good  one,  but  It  is 
not  introduced  in  this  place  with  propriety.     In  Dry- 

173 


174     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

den's  play,  Ventidius  in  the  First  Act  estranges  Antony 
from  Cleopatra,  after  which,  naturally,  follows  the 
scene  in  which  Antony  reproaches  her;  but  the  editor 
of  the  present  play  reverses  the  order  of  things  and 
makes  Dryden's  second  scene  precede  his  first.  In 
Dryden's  play,  the  scene  lies  the  whole  time  at  Alex- 
andria, but  in  this  alteration  Antony  is  represented  as 
coming  back  to  Egypt  merely  to  tell  Cleopatra  that 
they  must  part,  which  is  not  only  contrary  to  the  fact, 
but  absurd  in  itself.  There  was  nothing  like  a  quarrel 
between  Antony  and  Cleopatra  till  after  the  battle  of 
Actium." 

Act  III,  which  begins  with  Shakespeare's  III,  6, 
follows  him,  with  slight  changes.  The  sea  fight  is 
represented  before  the  audience  in  a  scene  without 
dialogue. 

Act  IV  is  almost  wholly  Dryden's.  The  scene  be- 
tween Antony  and  Ventidius  from  Dryden's  Third 
Act,  in  which  Ventidius  exhorts  Antony  to  continue 
warring  against  Csesar,  is  inserted.  Dolabella  enters 
and  to  him  Antony  describes  Cleopatra  on  the  Cydnus, 
partly  in  the  lines  of  Shakespeare  and  partry  in  those 
of  Dr)^den.  Dolabella  announces  conditions  from 
Caesar.  Then  comes  the  scene  from  Dryden  between 
Antony  and  Octavia,  which  should  have  been  left  out, 
as  it  takes  the  place  of  Shakespearean  scenes  of 
greater  merit.  Moreover,  Octavia's  coming  to  An- 
tony in  Egypt  is  an  unnecessary  poetical  fiction. 

The  Fifth  Act  is  a  combination  of  Shakespeare 
and  Dryden.  As  in  Dryden,  Ventidius  kills  himself 
when  asked  by  Antony  to  kill  him,  and  thus  shames 
Antony  into  falling  on  his  sword.  Before  Antony 
dies,  he  is  taken  to  Cleopatra  and  the  scene  between 
them  is,  with  much  abridgment,  like  Shakespeare. 
A  short  scene  is  introduced  between  Proculeius  and 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  175 

Dolabella,  in  which  the  latter  mourns  for  Antony  and 
says  that  Antony's  adherents  will  attend  to  the  funeral 
arrangements.  The  play  then  ends  with  a  grand 
funeral  procession  with  epicedium.  Many  of  Dry- 
den's  lines  are  used  in  this  scene. 

The  practice  of  amalgamating  plays  of  two  au- 
thors has  already  been  sufficiently  discussed  in  other 
connections.  It  may  be  said  of  this,  that  it  is  perhaps 
the  best  of  such  combinations,  for  the  reason  that  the 
editor  has  in  the  main  chosen  the  best  "parts  of 
Dryden's  play  and  has  refrained  from  inserting  in  the 
patchwork,  matter  of  his  own  invention.  However, 
there  was  plenty  of  material  in  Shakespeare's  play 
and  consequently  no  necessity  to  borrow  from 
Dryden. 

Cymbeline 

Cymbeline,  which  is  really  a  tragi-comedy,  al- 
though placed  among  the  tragedies  by  the  First  Folio 
editors,  was  first  altered  as  early  as  1682  by  "Tom" 
Durfey,  the  favorite  entertainer  of  the  "  Merry  Mon- 
arch "  and  his  successors,  and  the  author  of  numerous 
dramas  and  other  works.  Durfey  made  material 
changes  both  as  to  the  plot  and  the  language.  He 
also  altered  the  title  and  the  names,  descriptions,  etc., 
of  several  of  the  characters.  On  the  title  page  of  the 
copy  of  the  play  I  have  seen,  the  title  is  given  as 
"The  Injured  Princess,  or  the  Fatal  Wager,"  but, 
curiously  enough,  on  the  first  page  and  at  the  top  of 
all  the  pages  of  the  play  it  appears  as  "  The  Unequal 
Match,  or  the  Fatal  Wager."  As  might  be  expected, 
the  scenes  in  Italy  are  transferred  to  France.  The 
new  play  is  decidedly  Frenchified. 

Shakespeare's  lachimo  becomes  Shatillion,  an 
opinionated  Frenchman,  and  the  lachimo  of  this  play 


176     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

is  a  "  roaring  drunken  lord,"  a  companion  of  Cloten. 
Posthumus  is  renamed  Ursaces,  and  Imogen,  Eugenia. 
Pisanio  is  turned  into  a  lord  and  made  the  father  of 
Clarinna,  a  new  character,  the  confidante  of  Eugenia. 
The  part  of  Guiderius  is  transferred  to  Arviragus, 
and  the  other  young  prince  is  called  Palladour. 

The  first  scene  of  the  First  Act  begins  with  the 
parting  of  Ursaces  and  Eugenia  (only  a  few  lines 
from  Shakespeare)  and  continues  with  some  dialogue 
between  Cymbeline,  Eugenia,  and  Ursaces  (some- 
what like  Shakespeare's),  and  with  the  dialogue 
between  Cloten  and  his  companions  (a  very  little 
from  Shakespeare's  scene  2),  and  ends  with  some 
dialogue  between  the  Queen  and  her  women,  in  which 
she  inquires  if  the  doctor  has  come  and  speaks  of 
Eugenia's  voluntary  seclusion  of  herself  from  every- 
body but  Clarinna.  Scene  2  is  Shakespeare's  I,  4,  but 
laid  in  France.  Durfey  follows  the  original  more 
closely  in  this  scene  than  in  any  other. 

Act  II,  scene  i,  is  mostly  new,  and  at' first  Cym- 
beline, the  Queen,  Pisanio,  and  the  Doctor  ^re  the 
participants.  They  talk  of  Eugenia's  conauct  (a 
few  words  only  from  II,  3),  and  Cymbeline  and  the 
Queen  blame  Pisanio  for  favoring  Ursaces.  After 
the  King  and  Pisanio  retii:e,  the  remainder  of  the 
scene  is  somewhat  like  I,  5.  Scene  2  is  I,  6,  with  the 
dialogue  greatly  altered  and  much  additional.  Scene 
3  is  entirely  new.  The  Queen  gives  Pisanio  the  vial, 
the  contents  of  which  she  tells  him  are  a  sure  cure  for 
disease,  as  an  earnest  of  future  favor.  After  she 
departs,  Pisanio  shows  in  a  soliloquy  that  he  suspects 
her.  Scene  4  has  first  a  part  like  II,  i,  and  then  a 
part  a  little  like  II,  3  (up  to  "Enter  Cymbeline  and 
Queen"). 

Act  III,  scene  i  is  II,  4,  and  scene  2  Is  II,  5,  of 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  177 

course  much  changed.  Scene  3  is  made  up  of  II,  3, 
III,  2,  and  III,  4,  very  much  altered.  Pisanio  be- 
lieves Eugenia  false  to  Ursaces  but  spares  her  life  and 
gives  her  the  vial  he  had  received  from  the  Queen. 
Eugenia  has  a  soliloquy  at  the  end  of  the  act. 

In  the  First  Scene  of  the  Fourth  Act,  the  Queen 
scolds  Clarinna  for  concealing  Eugenia's  escape  and 
commands  lachimo  to  punish  her.  The  King  enters 
and  orders  a  thorough  search  to  be  made  for  Eugenia, 
and  then  a  captain  comes  in  and  informs  Cymbeline 
of  the  landing  of  the  Roman  army.  Scene  2  is  in  the 
main  like  III,  6,  a  great  deal  altered  both  in 
Eugenia's  soliloquy  and  in  the  remainder.  In  Scene 
3,  Cloten,  disguised  as  Ursaces,  enters  with  lachimo, 
dragging  in  Clarinna,  On  lachimo's  attempting  to 
ravish  her,  she  cries  for  help  and  her  father,  who 
is  near  by,  appears  on  the  scene,  Clarinna  flees  and 
Pisanio  fights  with  lachimo  and  kills  him.  There- 
upon Cloten  puts  out  Pisanio's  eyes,  after  which  he 
goes  in  quest  of  Clarinna.  Scene  4  is  at  first  a  little 
like  IV,  2,  and  then  follows  a  part  in  which  Bellario 
and  the  two  princes  decide  to  fight  for  the  King. 

Act  V,  scene  i  is  the  soliloquy  of  Ursaces,  altered 
much  for  the  worse,  Durfey  adds  a  contemporary 
touch  which  is  remarkably  out  of  place  in  this  play  and 
which  is  worth  quoting  as  an  example  of  the  depraved 
dramatic  taste  of  the  author  and  of  his  time,  and  as 
an  indication  of  the  low  moral  tone  then  prevalent. 
Ursaces  says  that  if  every  woman  that  forfeits  honor 
should  be  deprived  of  hfe, 

"The  full-fed  city  dame  would  sin  in  fear; 
The  divine's  daughter  slight  the  amorous  cringe 
Of  her  tall  lover;  the  close  salacious  Puritan 
Forget  th'  appointment  with  her  canting  brother," 


178     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

Scene  2  is  the  battle  scene,  mostly  the  work  of  Durfey. 
Eugenia  is  present  and  recognizes  Shatillion,  who  is 
disguised  as  a  Briton.  Ursaces  kills  him  after  he  has 
acknowledged  Eugenia's  innocence,  and  is  about  to 
take  his  own  life,  when  he  is  seized  and  taken  to  the 
King.  In  scene  3,  the  denouement  takes  place,  much 
as  in  Shakespeare's  V,  5,  but  the  scene  is  greatly 
shortened. 

As  an  alteration  of  Shakespeare  this  is  wretched, 
but  Durfey's  additions,  considered  by  themselves,  are 
by  no  means  wholly  despicable.  In  the  epilogue  he 
calls  the  play  a  comedy,  yet  it  is  more  tragic  than 
"  Cymbeline." 

It  would  be  useless  and  tedious  to  do  more  than 
comment  on  a  few  of  the  principal  features  of  this 
version.  The  greatest  change  in  the  plot  made  by 
Durfey  is  that  which  is  shown  in  the  second  scene  of 
Act  V,  namely,  the  killing  by  Ursaces  of  the  destroyer 
of  his  peace  of  mind.  In  no  instance  is  the  genius  and 
higher  purpose  of  Shakespeare  more  clearly  to  be 
seen.  Durfey's  rather  ordinary  dramatic  instincts 
led  him  to  punish  Shatillion  (lachimo)  as  a  sort  of 
poetical  justice,  and  thus  to  detract  from  the  charac- 
terization of  Ursaces  (Posthumus)  ;  whereas  Shake- 
speare's supreme  dramatic  ability  made  him  make  of 
his  hero  a  rare  exponent  of  magnanimity,  a  man  who, 
perceiving  that  he  himself  had  erred,  was  ready  to 
forgive  another  as  he  had  been  forgiven.  How  much 
higher  a  justice  this  than  the  so-called  poetical  justice 
of  the  classicists!  This  is  only  another  of  the  many 
lamentable  failures  of  lesser  minds  to  improve  upon 
Shakespeare. 

Nothing  can  be  said  in  favor  of  the  addition  of 
Clarinna  and  the  scenes  in  which  she  figures.  It  is  an 
unnecessary  one  and  therefore  bad.    The  third  scene 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  179 

of  Act  IV,  the  scene  which  has  most  to  do  with  her 
affairs,  is  especially  unwelcome  because  of  its  moral 
and  physical  unpleasantness,  both  occasioned  by  the 
taste  and  character  of  Durfey  and  his  time. 

Although  enough  of  the  original  plot  has  been 
retained  to  prevent  the  play  from  being  very  bad  as  a 
play  of  Durfey's,  yet  from  the  point  of  view  of  Its 
relationship  to  its  original,  it  is  highly  censurable, 
like  most  other  similar  revisions  of  Shakespeare,  in 
that  too  much  of  the  alterer's  own  has  been  substituted 
for  better  material,  and  in  that,  what  is  still  more 
blameworthy,  the  diction  of  the  parts  that  are  retained 
has  been  treated  in  such  a  way  as  to  remove  or  dis- 
guise most  of  Its  beauties. 

Another  alteration  of  "  Cymbeline "  was  made 
by  Charles  Marsh,  whom  we  have  met  before  as  a 
reviser  of  "The  Winter's  Tale,"  in  1755.  Marsh's 
play  was  not  acted  and,  although  it  was  printed,  I 
have  not  seen  a  copy  of  it.  The  following  quotation 
from  the  "  Biographia  Dramatica "  is  all  I  have 
found  concerning  it:  "Though  Mr.  Marsh  was  not 
at  that  time  a  magistrate,  the  dullness  he  displayed  in 
the  present  undertaking,  afforded  strong  presumptions 
of  his  future  rise  to  a  seat  on  the  bench  at  Guildhall, 
Westminster." 

A  third  and  very  material  alteration  was  that  pro- 
duced In  1759  by  William  Hawkins,  M.  A.,  at  one 
time  Professor  of  Poetry  In  the  University  of  Ox- 
ford. Hawkins  had  great  difficulty  in  getting  his 
play  properly  represented,  a  fact  to  which  he  refers  in 
the  dedication  and  preface,  for  Mrs.  Bellamy  declined 
the  part  of  Imogen  and  the  part  of  Philarlo  was  taken 
by  an  actor  inadequate  for  it. 

The  reviser's  spirit  and  method  of  treatment  will 
best  be  made  evident  by  letting  his  speak  for  himself: 


i8o      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

"  I  have  endeavored,"  he  says  in  the  preface,  "  to 
new-construct  this  tragedy  almost  upon  the  plan  of 
Aristotle  himself  in  respect  to  the  unity  of  time;  with 
so  thorough  a  veneration  however  for  the  great  father 
of  the  English  stage  that,  even  while  I  have  presumed 
to  regulate  and  modernize  his  design,  I  have  thought 
it  an  honor  to  tread  in  his  steps,  and  to  imitate  his 
style,  with  the  humility  and  reverence  of  a  son.  With 
this  view,  I  have  retained  in  many  places  the  very 
language  of  the  original  author,  and  in  all  others 
endeavored  to  supply  It  with  a  diction  similar  there- 
unto; so  that,  as  an  unknown  friend  of  mine  has  ob- 
served, the  present  attempt  Is  entirely  new,  whether 
it  be  considered  as  an  alteration  from  or  an  imitation 
of  Shakespeare."  Accordingly,  we  find  the  unity  of 
time  observed  and  that  of  place  more  nearly  adhered 
to,  but  the  foregoing  extract  gives  no  conception  of 
the  violent  changes  in  the  plot  that  Hawkins  made  In 
his  solicitude  for  regularity  and  in  his  presumption  of 
trying  to  Improve  upon  the  original.  v 

The  character  of  lachlmo  is  rejected  and  the  first 
part  of  that  of  Posthumus;  Palador  and  Cadwall  are 
the  names  of  the  two  princes;  the  Queen  Is  spoken  of 
as  lately  dead;  the  Pisanio  of  the  original  becomes 
Philario  and  is  made  a  friend,  instead  of  a  servant, 
to  Posthumus;  the  Pisanio  of  this  play  is  an  Italian, 
a  tool  of  Cloten's,  who  takes  the  place  to  some  extent 
of  lachimo;  Cloten  is  made  a  serious  character;  the 
parts  of  Palador  and  Philario  are  enlarged  ("Im- 
proved" says  Hawkins). 

The  play  opens  at  about  Act  II,  4,  of  the  original, 
a  little  Introductory  matter  however  being  added. 
Calus  Lucius  demands  tribute  of  Cymbeline,  which 
the  latter  refuses  to  pay;  Cymbeline  tells  Cloten  he 
has   disinherited   Imogen   and   made   him   his   heir; 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  i8i 

PIsanIo  tells  Cloten  by  what  arts  he  has  imposed  upon 
Posthumus  and  made  him  believe  Imogen  to  be  false; 
Imogen  is  discovered  in  prison;  Philario  persuades 
her  to  escape  in  the  disguise  of  a  boy. 

In  Act  II,  Cloten  and  Cymbeline  discover  that 
Imogen  has  fled  (as  in  III,  5)  ;  then  follow  scene  3  of 
Act  III,  not  much  modified,  and  scene  4  of  the  same 
act,  altered  decidedly  for  the  worse ;  then  Bellarius  re- 
turns and  Philario  and  Imogen  are  kindly  received 
by  him. 

In  Act  III,  Philario,  in  a  soliloquy,  doubts  the 
innocence  of  Imogen.  When  Bellarius  enters  he 
praises  the  two  princes  in  a  number  of  lines,  several 
of  which  are  from  "  Troilus  and  Cressida."  Philario 
tells  Imogen  that  the  drug  he  has  given  her  is  poison. 
Then  follows  a  part  of  IV,  2  (Cadwall  sings  a  modi- 
fied form  of  the  dirge) . 

Act  IV  opens  on  the  field  of  battle  and  is  some- 
thing like  V,  2.  Palador  kills  Pisanio,  who,  before  he 
dies,  gives  him  a  note  of  Cloten's,  which  discloses 
their  villainy  and  which  he  desires  him  to  give  to 
Posthumus.  It  is  not  told  how  Pisanio  knew  Posthu- 
mus to  be  in  the  battle,  or  how  Palador  was  to  find 
him,  but  Posthumus  is  made  to  come  on  the  scene, 
with  obliging  opportuneness,  and  is  thereupon  con- 
vinced of  his  wife's  innocence.  Philario,  who 
throughout  the  play  is  a  very  inconsistent  character, 
when  reproached  by  Posthumus  for  having  been  the 
instrument  of  his  cruelty,  refrains  from  revealing  the 
fact  that  the  Princess  is  alive.  At  this  point,  Cym- 
beline comes  in  and  is  requested  to  go  to  the  cave. 

In  Act  V,  Palador,  Cadwall,  and  Imogen  are  first 
disclosed;  then  Philario  enters  and,  we  cannot  imagine 
for  what  reason,  tells  Imogen  that  her  husband  is 
dead ;  Cymbeline  and  others  then  appear  and  the  play 


182     ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

ends,  as  regards  the  action,  much  as  in  Shakespeare. 

Here  indeed  the  pseudo-classic  influence  has  pro- 
duced a  sad  result,  for  a  play  of  Shakespeare's  has, 
in  the  effort  to  make  it  regular,  been  outrageously 
mutilated.  For  many  of  the  changes  there  seems  to 
be  no  discoverable  reason  aside  from  mere  whimsi- 
cality. Much  of  the  first  portion  of  the  play  which 
throws  light  upon  the  characters  and  belongs  to  their 
development  has  most  improperly  been  rejected. 
Shakespeare's  Pisanio  is  spoiled  in  Hawkins's  en- 
larged characterization  of  him  under  the  name  of 
Philario.  As  in  Durfey,  the  conception  of  Posthu- 
mus,  whom  in  general  Flawkins  has  rendered  less 
conspicuous,  is  much  injured  by  depriving  him  of  the 
opportunity  to  display  his  magnanimity  and  forgiving 
spirit.  We  fail  to  see  wherein  it  improves  the  part 
of  Palador  to  make  him  the  instrument  of  the  Haw- 
kins Pisanio's  punishment.  Poetical  justice  is  doubt- 
less responsible  for  this  procedure.  The  transformed 
Cloten  as  instigator  of  the  attempt  on  Imogen,  which 
is  not  undertaken  for  a  wager  but  out  of  Vnalice 
towards  Posthumus,  is  far  less  natural  than  Shake- 
speare's Cloten,  the  base  tool  of  an  ambitious  mother. 

It  would  be  wearisome  and  unprofitable  to  discuss 
the  action  of  Hawkins's  play.  Suffice  it  to  say  that 
the  whole  development  of  the  plot  is  managed  with 
infinitely  less  art  than  in  the  original,  and  that  the 
verse  added  bears  no  very  striking  resemblance  to 
Shakespeare's  diction,  in  spite  of  the  compiler's 
avowed  endeavor  to  imitate  it.  Of  the  later  versions, 
this  is  about  the  most  violent  and  most  wretched. 
That  such  an  alteration  as  this  should  be  presented  to 
the  public  so  late  as  1759  removes  all  wonder  that  the 
earlier  revisers,  at  a  time  when  Shakespeare  was  less 
in  favor,  should  think  themselves  at  liberty  to  mangle 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  183 

his  dramas  as  they  did.  And  in  this  Instance  the 
mutilation  is,  mirabile  dictu,  the  work  of  a  professor 
of  poetry  in  the  University  of  Oxford ! 

Garrick's  adaptation  of  "  Cymbeline,"  which  was 
first  acted  at  Drury  Lane,  November  28,  1761,  is 
in  the  main  a  most  judicious  one,  for,  this  time,  he 
was  content  to  omit  and  transpose  only  what  seemed 
necessary.  In  one  respect  a  bad  change  was  made,  for 
the  dirge,  instead  of  being  given  as  in  Shakespeare, 
was  sung  as  abridged  from  Hawkins. 

Henry  Brooke,  author  of  "  The  Fool  of  Quality," 
also  published  a  play  with  the  title  of  "  Cymbeline," 
which  differs  so  much  from  Shakespeare's  play  that 
It  cannot  be  called  an  alteration  of  it.  Yet  the  out- 
lines of  Brooke's  play  are  borrowed  from  his  prede- 
cessor and  he  doubtless  had  Shakespeare  before  him 
as  he  wrote.  The  scene  In  Imogen's  bedchamber 
(Shakespeare's  II,  2)  Is  the  only  scene  (it  is  Brooke's 
II,  7)  in  which  there  Is  much  direct  borrowing. 
Practically  the  entire  play  is  written  afresh  in  a 
manner  far  inferior  to  Shakespeare. 

Pericles 

A  portion,  the  last  two  acts,  of  this  partly  Shake- 
spearean play  was  altered  into  a  three-act  drama  by 
George  Lillo,  author  of  the  first  specimens  of  the 
bourgeois  tragedy  or  modern  melodrama.  Lillo, 
who  was  a  London  jeweler  and  is  chiefly  remembered 
for  his  tragedy  of  "George  Barnwell,"  admired 
Shakespeare,  and  had  taste  enough  to  recognize  his 
work.  The  spirit  In  which  he  went  to  work  at  "  Peri- 
cles "  appears  from  his  prologue,  which  I  quote: 

"  Hard  is  the  task,  in  this  discerning  age, 
To  find  new  subjects  that  will  bear  the  stage; 


i84      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

And  bold  our  bards,  their  low  harsh  strains  to  bring 

Where  Avon's  swan  has  long  been  heard  to  sing ; 

Blest  parent  of  our  scene!  whose  matchless  wit, 

Tho'  yearly  reap'd,  is  our  best  harvest  yet. 

Well  may  that  genius  every  heart  command, 

Who  drew  all  Nature  with  her  own  strong  hand; 

As  various,  as  harmonious,  fair  and  great, 

With  the  same  vigor  and  immortal  heat ; 

As  thro'  each  element  and  form  she  shines: 

We   view   heav'n's    handmaid    in    her    Shakespeare's 

lines. 
Though  some  mean  scenes,  injurious  to  his  fame. 
Have  long  usurp'd  the  honor  of  his  name; 
To  glean  and  clear  from  chaff  his  least  remains, 
Is  just  to  him,  and  richly  worth  our  pains. 
We  dare  not  charge  the  whole  unequal  play 
Of  Pericles  on  him ;  yet  let  us  say, 
As  gold  tho'  mix'd  with  baser  metal  shines. 
So  do  his  bright  inimitable  lines 
Throughout    those    rude    wild    scenes    distinguish'd 

stand, 
And  shew  he  touch'd  them  with  no  sparing  hand." 

He  called  his  play  "  Marina,"  after  the  heroine, 
with  whose  story  the  portion  he  adapted  deals.  It 
was  first  acted,  August  ii,  1738,  at  Covent  Garden. 
The  dramatis  personam  are  altered  somew^hat  and  are : 
Pericles,  King  of  Tyre;  Lysimachus,  Governor  of 
Ephesus;  Escanes,  attendant  on  Pericles;  Leonine,  a 
young  lord  of  Tharsus;  Valdes,  captain  of  a  crew  of 
pirates;  Boult,  a  pander;  Thaisa,  Queen  of  Tyre; 
Philoten,  Queen  of  Tharsus  (she  is  the  daughter  of 
Cleon  and  Dionyza,  who  are  omitted  from  "  Ma- 
rina," and  is  not  a  character  in  "  Pericles,"  but  in  this 
play  takes  the  place  of  her  mother)  ;  Marina,  daugh- 
ter to  Pericles  and  Thaisa;  Mother  Coupler,  a  bawd, 
etc.    The  scene  is  laid  at  Tharsus  and  Ephesus  only. 


OF  SHAKESPEARE  185 

The  play  begins  with  Philoten's  instructions  to 
Leonine  to  kill  Marina  and  Marina's  rescue  by 
pirates  ("  Pericles  "  IV,  i ) .  The  pirates  speak  much 
more  than  in  the  old  play.  The  Queen  is  represented 
as  in  love  with  Leonine.  Scene  2  is  the  brothel  scene 
considerably  altered  (dialogue  is  added  from  "  Peri- 
cles "IV,  3). 

The  Second  Act,  in  the  first  scene,  has  some  lines 
like  "  Pericles  "  IV,  4.  The  Queen  is  represented  as 
repentant  and  Leonine  as  claiming  her  as  his  reward. 
Then  Pericles  enters,  speaks  of  Marina,  is  informed 
of  her  death  (words  from  various  parts  of  the  orig- 
inal are  used) ,  and  then  laments  before  Marina's 
monument,  the  dumb  show  being  thus  turned  into 
dialogue.  The  Queen  refuses  to  wed  Leonine,  and  he 
stabs  her  and  is  then  seized  by  the  guards.  Scene  2 
is  a  brothel  scene  ("Pericles"  IV,  6).  Marina  is 
rescued  by  Lysimachus's  officers  instead  of  by  Boult. 

Act  III,  scene  i  consists  of  a  dialogue  of  accusa- 
tion and  recrimination  between  Boult  and  Mother 
Coupler.  In  scene  2,  at  first,  two  priests,  in  the  tem- 
ple of  Diana  at  Ephesus,  are  talking  about  Thaisa  and 
they  speak  of  her  resemblance  to  Marina.  Thaisa 
awakes,  having  dreamed  of  Pericles.  Lysimachus 
enters  and  asks  her  if  she  has  learned  anything  about 
the  young  maid  he  has  intrusted  to  her.  She  replies 
in  the  negative.  The  ship  of  Pericles  then  appears 
and  the  king  is  brought  in.  Marina  is  led  in  to  try  to 
restore  him.  She  tries  singing  and  then  tells  her  story 
(like  "Pericles"  V,  i).  Her  father  recognizes  her 
and  Thaisa  recognizes  him,  etc.,  as  in  the  original 
(V,  3).  Lysimachus  is  to  have  Marina  for  wife. 
There  is  no  revenge  as  Leonine  has  already  killed 
Philoten. 

Lillo  will  thus  be  seen  to  have  fallen  short  of  real- 


i86      ALTERATIONS  AND  ADAPTATIONS 

izing  the  expectations  that  might  have  been  formed 
from  his  prologue.  He  has  omitted  parts,  as  the 
scene  between  Cleon  and  Dionyza  (IV,  3) ,  which  are 
far  superior  to  his  own  indifferent  additions.-  He  has 
made  a  fairly  good  play,  however,  and  we  are  not  dis- 
posed to  censure  him  highly  for  his  performance, 
which,  especially  when  compared  with  some  others 
of  the  kind,  is  not  altogether  discreditable. 


Ill 

EPILOGUE 


EPILOGUE 

THE  list  and  accounts  of  these  dramatic  per- 
versions are  now  completed.  Taken  to- 
gether, these  alterations  and  adaptations  will 
be  seen  to  constitute  a  body  of  dramatic 
literature  which  is  considerable,  quantitatively,  only 
two  or  three  plays  having  escaped  treatment  of  this 
kind.  Happily,  they  have,  however,  been  for  the 
most  part  discarded  and  forgotten.  "And  thus  the 
whirligig  of  time  brings  in  his  revenges."  Shake- 
speare, whom  they  for  a  time  crowded  almost  entirely 
from  the  scene,  has,  by  the  mere  force  of  his  genius, 
survived  his  temporary  displacement,  thereby  proving 
conclusively,  if  proof  were  needed,  that  his  works 
are  "not  for  an  age,"  as  were  those  of  his  would-be 
improvers,  "but  for  all  time."  That  this  change  has 
been  effected  makes  one  have  renewed  confidence  that 
the  literary  judgment  of  time  is  unerring.  Now, 
these  remodeled  plays,  once  so  important,  have  in- 
terest merely  as  literary  curiosities  and  as  manifesta- 
tions of  dramatic  notions  forever  and  rightfully 
rejected. 

A  word,  in  conclusion,  as  to  the  value  of  this 
investigation.  Besides  the  knowledge  it  has  afforded 
of  the  history  of  the  stage  and  of  the  opinion  as  to 
Shakespeare,  it  has  been,  above  all,  of  incalculable 
benefit  in  throwing  light  on  Shakespeare  as  the  su- 
preme dramatic  artist.  In  no  way  could  the  superi- 
ority of  his   dramatic  methods,   almost  unfailingly 

189 


I90        ALTERATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE 

exhibiting  that  fidelity  to  nature  or  trueness  to  life 
which  constitutes  genuine  art,  be  more  clearly  mani- 
fested than  by  having  them  thus  thrown  into  com- 
parison with  those  employed  by  playwrights  who,  for 
the  most  part,  were  possessed  of  little  talent  or  no 
genius  for  dramatic  composition  and  who  stultified 
themselves  by  attempting  to  deal  with  the  same  situa- 
tions and  to  improve  what  they  in  their  blindness 
believed  to  be  inartistic. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


tcBk,! 


\5i. 


REC'D  LD-U  \L 
FEBI519J2 


m 


■UN  £3ili» 


S^I5d\MKMAY24l995 

jut 


m  L9-S 


987 


PR2880.       A1K5 


3   1158  00406  80^ 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACIL 


AA    000  353  451 


il^Ni 


